Re: Java packages in main depending on non-free java.

Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net writes: I went through the list of our public packages listed here[1] and it turns out that we have 7 packages depending on a non-free version of java (as an alternative to a free or a java-runtimeN). Eh? I checked azureus, and it correctly depends on

maven-doxia-tools_1.0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Dear maintainer, see -2 reject. === If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the override file requires editing, reply to this email. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

maven-site-plugin_2.0~beta7-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Dear maintainer, see -2 reject. === If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the override file requires editing, reply to this email. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

maven-doxia-tools_1.0.1-2_i386.changes REJECTED

Dear maintainer, REJECTed, the copyright assignation should be to Copyright Apache Contributors, licensed by ASF, instead of Copyright ASF. Otherwise the package is OK. I think we've semi-accidentally accepted this in the (near) past, so you might want to check for this in the other

maven-doxia-tools_1.0.1-2_i386.changes REJECTED

Dear maintainer, REJECTed, the copyright assignation should be to Copyright Apache Contributors, licensed by ASF, instead of Copyright ASF. Otherwise the package is OK. I think we've semi-accidentally accepted this in the (near) past, so you might want to check for this in the other packages,

maven-site-plugin_2.0~beta7-2_i386.changes REJECTED

Dear maintainer, REJECTed, same ASF copyright / license issue. === If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the override file requires editing, reply to this email. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list

Re: maven-doxia-tools_1.0.1-2_i386.changes REJECTED

Torsten Werner twer...@debian.org writes: I have attached the (generated) NOTICE file for maven-doxia-tools. It states: Maven Doxia Integration Tools Copyright 2002-2008 The Apache Software Foundation Shall I really change the copyright statement in the Debian package as you have

Re: maven-doxia-tools_1.0.1-2_i386.changes REJECTED

Torsten Werner twer...@debian.org writes: Must not every ASF contributor sign either an Individual or Corporate Contributor License Agreement? AFAIK yes. That means we have to change ALL apache packages? Probably yes, unfortunately. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable

pdfsam_1.0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Dear Maintainer, rejected, you're missing at least the messages copyright holders (Canonical et al), possibly others. === If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the override file requires editing, reply to this email. ___

Bug#491290: liblucene-java: Invalid link for lucene.jar

Package: liblucene-java Version: 1.4.3.dfsg-3 Severity: important /usr/share/java/lucene.jar links to ../lucene-1.4.3.jar which is incorrect. It should link to ./lucene-1.4.3.jar. -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500,

Bug#439496: unmerge

Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: how is unzip not found (so a missing build-dep on unzip) related to the Java errors in gjdoc? Hngh, sorry, got overzealous when correcting incorrectly filed mass bug reports (assumed the whole batch was for the same gjdoc problem instead of checking each

Bug#413053: jta: orig.tar.gz not available

Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it only a bug in the maintainer's procedure or rather in the archive maintaining software? I guess that depends on your point of view :) I ran into this problem with my jspwiki package, and IIRC the idea is to fix the archive to handle this at some

Bug#395615: jakarta-log4j1.2: missing binary-arch target in debian/rules (Policy 4.9)

Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jakarta-log4j1.2's source package contains a debian/rules file which does not contain the binary-arch target. This target required by both the section 4.9 of the Debian policy [1] and the Etch release standards [2]. The policy manual says: build-arch

Bug#395610: libgnujaf-java: missing binary-arch target in debian/rules (Policy 4.9)

Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: libgnujaf-java's source package contains a debian/rules file which does not contain the binary-arch target. This target required by both the section 4.9 of the Debian policy [1] and the Etch release standards [2]. This too is not a bug. The policy

Bug#386394: tomcat5: Fails to start: doesn't detect sun-java5-bin JVM

Bastian Kleineidam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adding /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun to the JDK dirs tomcat starts up without errors. Here is the patch: Umh, how have you installed the Sun 1.5 JDK? make-jpkg should put it into /usr/lib/j2sdk1.5-sun, not under lib/jvm. -- * Sufficiently advanced

Re: tomcat5.5

Arnaud Vandyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please note that we want the tomcat5.5 package to be in main so it must be buildable und runable with a JDK from main. ... a free one (as in DFSG). There are only free JDK's in main :) ObShamelessPlug: JSPWiki is finally in main. -- * Sufficiently

Bug#341777: Support Mysql for WebApps deployed to Tomcat

Arnaud Vandyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure it's the responsability of JSPWiki to add symlinks in the tomcat5 directory tree. Well, it does so already :) It has to register itself as a webapp and it has to add a policy file. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from