Il 16/09/2011 18:26, Antonio Terceiro ha scritto: > 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.
Agreed. >> 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. Let's wait for upstream comment, hopefully she will respond in due time. If that doesn't happen, I think we could accept the unmodified file for the time being, pending a proper solution. -- .''`. : :' : Luca Falavigna <[email protected]> `. `' `-
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
