Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

2009-03-20 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, On Donnerstag, 19. März 2009, Neil Williams wrote: there were some good points of the earlier drafts of that page and I use these in my own packages but the current version is completely unusable and unacceptable. (For an example of an acceptable midpoint, see

Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files

2009-03-20 Thread Giacomo A. Catenazzi
Ben Finney wrote: [note: quotations in random order] (We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.) Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g. the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of license. That's not enough for

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

2009-03-20 Thread Charles Plessy
[Transferred to -devel as suggested. Please follow-up there]. Le Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 04:40:33PM +, Sune Vuorela a écrit : http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue. It is not easy readables for humans It is ugly

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on.... (they use none of its symbols)

2009-03-20 Thread Chow Loong Jin
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 13:53 +0900, Paul Wise wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Miguel Landaeta mig...@miguel.cc wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: A workaround is to add -Wl,--as-needed to LDFLAGS, Gentoo has a document about that here:

Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files

2009-03-20 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org [090320 10:08]: Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g. the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of license. That's not enough for Debian to know the rights of recipients: mere inclusion of license

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

2009-03-20 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, On Freitag, 20. März 2009, Holger Levsen wrote: Yeah, that (file) looks totally reasonable to me. What has changed in the proposal that this is outdated now? Why not change it back? Ok, I saw your mail on -devel now, stating that you were using revision 50 and its at 500 now... regards,

Re: RFS: commons-math

2009-03-20 Thread Damien Raude-Morvan
Hi Matt, On Friday 20 March 2009 00:57:35 Matthew Johnson wrote: On Thu Mar 19 21:01, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: Ok, can I suggest a compromise. Build-depend on default-jdk and then at build time compile with default-jdk and, if openjdk is installed, use it to run the test suite.

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on.... (they use none of its symbols)

2009-03-20 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Chow Loong Jin hyper...@gmail.com [090320 09:58]: Just curiosity, what kind of problems can be caused from using --as-needed? My memory of this is vague, searching the BTS I found these though: http://bugs.debian.org/379748 http://udrepper.livejournal.com/11056.html

Re: RFS: commons-math

2009-03-20 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri Mar 20 13:47, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: I finally see our misundertanding : I already build all class files with -source 1.3 and -target 1.3 (class Format 47) as recommanded by upstream. They will run fine on any JVM = 1.3. Aha, excellent. Could you upload my package as is ?

Re: RFS: centerim (updated package)

2009-03-20 Thread Anibal Avelar
Dmitry, I made the changes in the debian/copyright file and I updated to Standards Version 3.8.1 Here the package: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/centerim/centerim_4.22.7-1.dsc Regards. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anibal Avelar aave...@cofradia.org wrote: Hi. Sorry

RFS: wmmoonclock (updated package)

2009-03-20 Thread Denis Briand
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.27-26 of my package wmmoonclock. It builds these binary packages: wmmoonclock - WindowMaker moon phase dockapp The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 455542, 479229 The package can be found on

Re: RFS: png-sixlegs (upstream release 1.3.0 + fixed lintian issues)

2009-03-20 Thread Dominik Smatana
package deleted On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, dominik.smat...@gmail.com wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.3.0-1 of my package png-sixlegs. It builds these binary packages: libpng-sixlegs-java - Sixlegs Java PNG Decoder The package appears to be

Re: RFS: commons-math

2009-03-20 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri Mar 20 13:47, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: Could you upload my package as is ? Done Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature