On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:33:59AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
I'm not sure why there'd be any repackaging needed? aiui no files have
been removed, the license information contained in them has simply been
updated.
correct. so if you want to update the old package to the newly
licensed
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 23:28 +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
a) repackage the source (a bit messsy), upload to TPU.
I'm not sure why there'd be any repackaging needed? aiui no files have
been removed, the license information contained in them has simply been
updated.
b) it was suggested that this
On Thu, January 17, 2013 23:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:51:13 +
Robert Lemmen rober...@semistable.com wrote:
#695716 is a GFDL-bug, upstream has relicensed their docs and released a
new version 0.6.7, I have updated the package and uploaded to unstable.
... which
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:50:34PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Users should not have to upgrade stable to new testing (Jessie) to fix
RC bugs which could have been fixed in stable. Nor should users be
expected to inspect details of the package in versions outside stable
to make decisions on
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:41:02PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
There are classes of bugs that are ignored by us if they're fixed in
unstable, copyright clarifications are among them.
exactly what I was after :) please le me know if we can apply that
logic, a simple wheezy-ignore, here. if not,
#695716 is a GFDL-bug, upstream has relicensed their docs and released a
new version 0.6.7, I have updated the package and uploaded to unstable.
unfortunately, the new version also contains other changes, so I don't
think 0.6.7 can progress to testing.
I was hoping we could wheezy-ignore this
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:51:13 +
Robert Lemmen rober...@semistable.com wrote:
#695716 is a GFDL-bug, upstream has relicensed their docs and released a
new version 0.6.7, I have updated the package and uploaded to unstable.
... which won't get into testing.
unfortunately, the new version
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:50:34PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Why couldn't an upload of cgdb 0.6.6-3 have been made with only the
changes to the docs licensing?
this is a source package problem, so it would have to be a
0.6.6+dfsg1-1 with repackaged source.
Would have been easier if you'd
8 matches
Mail list logo
