2013/5/22 Alberto Luaces <alua...@udc.es>:
> Alberto Luaces writes:
>> Loic Dachary writes:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm not sure how to proceed but the rule could probably be deduced
>>> from the packages with "dfsg" in their name. I think it needs to be
>>> removed from the tarball as well, otherwise debian will indeed
>>> distribute proprietary software in the main section.
>> Thanks for the hint, I will make a little research on that topic.
> It seems that this information would fit the bill (removing the
> offending files from the tarball and add a README.Debian-source file and
> "dfsg" to the name of the package):
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What_does_dfsg_in_the_package_name_mean.3F

Yes, that's it.  It would be better if they remove it in future releases.

BTW, 3.0.1 was ages ago, any news about new releases?

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>

Pkg-osg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to