On 2012-03-11 23:36, Jakub Adam wrote: > Hi Niels, > >> I see this have (apparently) been left unanswered for a while. Is this >> RFS still relevant and if so, how do did you obtain a tarball for it? >> Upstream does not appear to have tarballs nor svn tags. The best I >> could find was their binary releases at [1], which suggests there are >> "multiple 0.5.3" versions. >> >> If you just pulled trunk, I think it is best to go back to the >> "+svn$rev" notation. > > yes, this RFS is still relevant. For the source tarball I determined the > right svn revision by comparing the commit date with build timestamp of > the last upstream binary release. But if you like it better I appended > revision number to the version. > >> I am also not sure what to make of the copyright holder of some the >> files in "templates/projecttemplates/". By the looks of it, it is a >> template/example thing. >> On the other hand, there seems to be a "Symbian Software" (possibly >> now owned by Nokia), so it could be a real copyright statement. If the >> latter is the case, the copyright statement is missing in d/copyright. > > Right, template.properties and template.xml seem to have real copyrights, > added them to the list. Rest of the files are just templates with > placeholders > for copyright. > > Regards, > > Jakub > >
Hi, Uploaded, thanks for your contribution. :) ... and sorry for the delay. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
