Kevin/ all, As far as I'm concerned, as long as we have "package name/ licence/ Free?", anything else just helps, as long as we don't fill it with crap.
Whilst I'm here, I've literally just added another column, here<http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Main/SuspectedNonFree>. Could you take a look. Cheers, Chris. On 07/07/07, Kevin Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure if this is breaking a format, I don't see anything established here. On http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Main/PackagesInMain I put a brief summary of libf which seems to be similar to the other summaries. On http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Main/MainLibf itself I've added two new sub-headings: Relevant Bugs and Actions Taken - I hadn't seen anything like this so I made it up. :P -Kevin On 7/7/07, Chris Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, all. > > More progress is being made with Package Freedom Verification. Could I ask > people who are being good enough to spend time on this project, to put a > short summary next to the letter/s they are working on. > > This is already happening in some cases, which is great. All status > summaries should have the date of the update, whether the list is 100% free, > if not, something to reflect this, such as three packages suspected to be > non-free. > > If packages are suspected to be non-free, then as mentioned earlier, these > packages need to be added to the "Suspected non-free" page, and a bug raised > against the package. > > Bottom-line: Great work being done, and it would be helpful if you could > put a short summary for your work. > > Many thanks- keep it up. > > Cheers, > > Chris. > _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
