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?


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

_______________________________________________
Pkg-osg-devel mailing list
Pkg-osg-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-osg-devel

Reply via email to