On 21 Oct, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
> 1) The field is PatchFile-MD5, not Patch-MD5 like you have.
I guess i should not do this kind of thing when i'm sick. Then again,
i was not aware that fink wouldn't complain over misspelled syntax.
> 2) The easiest way to
On 10/21/2011 12:17 PM, David Lowe wrote:
> Okeh, so i'm trying to apply a new patch to the latest version of
> FreeCiv. I thought i was really getting the hang of this - i made the patch
> as a p1 rather than p0, etc. Then when fink goes to build the package, the
> build stops because t
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 17:43, David R. Morrison wrote:
> I looked at glut, and I guess there is some ambiguity in the sentence
> "The programs are not in the
> public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing
> fees."
>From /usr/share/doc/libglut3/copyright on my Debian system:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Dienstag, April 1, 2003, at 03:49 Uhr, Ben Hines wrote:
"distribution is allowed without license".
To cut things short. I ran this by our lawyers and here is what they
said:
"This type of license indicates that you may distribute the enti
Am Dienstag, 01.04.03 um 03:49 Uhr schrieb Ben Hines:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:33 PM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' b
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:33 PM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is
mentioned specifically in the glut l
On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is
mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing
binaries, its just a general statement
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote:
I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is
mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing
binaries, its just a general statement or maybe I'm being to picky.
Many licenses don't mention binaries.
On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at 11:00 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote:
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:43 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
(Depends on whether it means that people don't have to pay the author
a
licensing fee, or that distributors are prevented from collecting
licensing fees.)
Actu
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:43 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
(Depends on whether it means that people don't have to pay the author a
licensing fee, or that distributors are prevented from collecting
licensing fees.)
Actually, I think that clearly means that they letting you distribute
it wi
Hi Dave,
Must of had a esp moment as I had just drafted an email to you
regarding the glut license field, I will add a
'Restrictive/Distributable' licence field to it sometime today as I
also have to add a missing 'BuildDependsOnly: True' field to it as well.
Matt
On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at
> Here is a list of stable packages missing the MD5, there are many other
> validate warnings too though, here are what I consider the 2 most
> important of those:
>
> Warning: File name should be automake-1.6.3-1.info
> (automake-1.6.3-2.info)
> Warning: No license specified. (glut-3.7-3.info)
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 11:21 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Here is a list of stable packages missing the MD5, there are many
other validate warnings
I missed the crypto tree, here are those too:
Warning: No MD5 checksum specified for "source".
(dcmtk-ssl-3.5.1-14.info)
Warning: No MD5 chec
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 10:43 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
This is a plea to fink developers to make sure that you include MD5
fields
for all of the sourcefiles your package downloads.
When you run "fink validate" on your .info file, it will warn you if
the
MD5 field is missing.
Here
This is a plea to fink developers to make sure that you include MD5 fields
for all of the sourcefiles your package downloads.
When you run "fink validate" on your .info file, it will warn you if the
MD5 field is missing.
(I think we should change this to an error, actually, because I think all
of
On Mittwoch, Januar 8, 2003, at 11:18 Uhr, Patrick Naef wrote:
Do you want me to send the whole stuff to a single person?
Originally, I was thinking of making a bundle for every maintainer and
creating
a tracker item for every bundle; this would help assigning the items
to specific
persons. H
>> I would like to announce that I am almost done with my work. Basically
>> I just
>> need to make a couple of final checks and then I would be ready to
>> deliver the
>> modified .info files to the package submission tracker.
>>
>> So, before anybody jumps at Max' suggestion, please be patient
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 06:33 PM, Patrick Naef wrote:
I would like to announce that I am almost done with my work. Basically
I just
need to make a couple of final checks and then I would be ready to
deliver the
modified .info files to the package submission tracker.
So, before anybo
A few weeks ago I mentioned on fink-devel that I would like to make an effort
and add Homepage and Source-MD5 fields to those .info files that lack them.
I would like to announce that I am almost done with my work. Basically I just
need to make a couple of final checks and then I would be ready t
I just modified the package validator (in CVS) to generate a warning
for any missing MD5 field. Everybody should go through their packages
and add MD5 fields (me, too, I hope I will find the time for that
soon).
In the meantime, there are about 120 package validation
warnings/errors in unstabl
20 matches
Mail list logo
