Cédric Boutillier escreveu isso aí: > There exists a file with the same name and content, but with a more > permissive license, already packaged for Debian in the package 'aglfn'. > (There is almost nothing else in that package). > I contacted upstream to propose him to use this file instead of the > problematic one.
This would be the ideal solution. > In the mean time, if the license from Adobe is still a no-go, I would > propose the following workaround: I could repack the source of the > package to remove that problematic file, add a dependency on that aglfn > and make a 1-line patch to use the good file instead of the bad one in > ruby-pdf-reader. > > What do you think? The problem with doing this is that we will have to carry both this patch *and* a repackaged tarball, both caused by the same issue. I would like to avoid this, unless upstream does not respond in a reasonable time. -- Antonio Terceiro <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
