On Mon, 17. Mar 20:38 Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
[...]
> >Upstream just states that their own license is _similar_ to the Apache
> >license.
>
> But this is not true. It is similar to an ancient version. It is by
> far not similar to what is nowadays called "Apache license". But
> this is bean count
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Markus Koschany wrote:
The whole bug report is bean counting. There is either a problem with
wrong licenses and a policy violation or not. Please take a closer took
at those files. None of them is licensed under the Apache license. It is
completely absurd what you are imply
Le 12/03/2014 12:37, Thorsten Alteholz a écrit :
> please add the missing licenses of:
> jdom-JDOM-2.0.5\contrib\src\resources\hamlet.xml
> jdom-JDOM-2.0.5\core\package\META-INF\jdom-info.xml
> jdom-JDOM-2.0.5\core\samples\* (some of them)
> jdom-JDOM-2.0.5\maven\maven.pom to debian/copyright
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 741419 - moreinfo + pending
Bug #741419 [libjdom2-java] missing license in debian/copyright
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
Bug #741419 [libjdom2-java] missing license in debian/copyright
Added tag(s) pending.
> severity 741419 minor
Bug #741419 [li
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 12/03/2014 12:37, Thorsten Alteholz a écrit :
please add the missing licenses of:
jdom-JDOM-2.0.5\contrib\src\resources\hamlet.xml
jdom-JDOM-2.0.5\core\package\META-INF\jdom-info.xml
jdom-JDOM-2.0.5\core\samples\* (some of them)
jdom-JDOM-2.
This bug (potentially) affect ~40 packages... Would you like a friendly NMU to
fix it?
--
Regards,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/53968D1B
---
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the
results.
-- Winston Churchill
signature.asc
Description: This is a digi
Hi Dmitry,
I checked the suggested regexp and I confirm it parses properly the
manifest entries. It's a bit sad to add a dependency on perl just for
this though.
Could you please commit your changes on alioth and upload a regular
update instead? That would save the need to ack a NMU.
Emmanuel Bo
Hi Emmanuel,
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:33:50 Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> I checked the suggested regexp and I confirm it parses properly the
> manifest entries. It's a bit sad to add a dependency on perl just for
> this though.
Thanks for double-checking my fix. Although I added "perl" to Depends I'm no
On 2014-03-19 02:23, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
Hi,
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:33:50 Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> I checked the suggested regexp and I confirm it parses properly the
>> manifest entries. It's a bit sad to add a dependency on perl just for
>> this though.
>
> Thanks for dou
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 06:52:56 Niels Thykier wrote:
> Why is "perl" needed rather than "perl-base" (which is essential). The
> patch seems to be using none of the modules from perl or perl-modules
Good point. It's just that dependencies on "perl-base" are so rare probably
because ${perl:Depends} n
On 2014-03-19 07:21, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 06:52:56 Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Why is "perl" needed rather than "perl-base" (which is essential). The
>> patch seems to be using none of the modules from perl or perl-modules
>
> Good point. It's just that dependencies on "perl-ba
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:23:24 Niels Thykier wrote:
> > because never expands as "perl-base" but only as "perl".
> Actually, you should probably just drop the dependency, since perl-base
> is essential (and therefore causes a lintian error if you depend on it
> without version).
You're right, "depe
12 matches
Mail list logo
