Bug#674961: RFS: roxterm/2.6.4-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.6.4-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL2+ Section : x11 It builds teose binary packages: roxterm - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - virtual package for GTK3 roxterm-common - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - common files roxterm-gtk2 - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - GTK2 version roxterm-gtk3 - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - GTK3 version To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/roxterm Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm/roxterm_2.6.4-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Check for valid cwd before using it to spawn processes (Closes: #674843). * Added "System" to Categories in desktop file. * New version of maitch which supports implicit rules only and makes better use of commonly used flags. * debian/rules: Use appropriate flags from dpkg-buildflags. Regards, Tony Houghton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528192730.2e1a719c@tiber
Bug#674959: RFS: jstest-gtk/0.1.1~git20090722-2 - joystick testing and configuration tool
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-games-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "jstest-gtk" * Package name: jstest-gtk Version : 0.1.1~git20090722-2 Upstream Author : Ingo Ruhnke * URL : http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/jstest-gtk/ * License : GPL-3+ Section : utils It builds those binary packages: jstest-gtk - joystick testing and configuration tool jstest-gtk-dbg - joystick testing and configuration tool - debug To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/jstest-gtk Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/jstest-gtk/jstest-gtk_0.1.1~git20090722-2.dsc or access the subversion repository svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-games/packages/trunk/jstest-gtk/ http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-games/packages/trunk/jstest-gtk/ Changes since the last upload: jstest-gtk (0.1.1~git20090722-2) unstable; urgency=low * Acknowledge NMU (thanks Gregor!). * Limit architectures to those using Linux kernels. * Add build-arch/build-indep targets and clean up debian/rules (in particular, avoid touching build-stamp from the binary target). * Correct Vcs-Browser URL. * Restore watch file. * Remove obsolete Encoding key from the desktop file. * Drop build-dependency on quilt, and correct debian/rules appropriately. * Add headers to all the patches. * Ship NEWS as the upstream changelog. * Re-enable typos.patch to fix another typo. * Update copyright years and format URL. * Rework libraries.patch to use pkg-config for all libraries. * Rework flag management to allow hardened builds. * Standards-Version 3.9.3, no further change required. -- Stephen Kitt Mon, 28 May 2012 23:49:12 +0200 Regards, Stephen Kitt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: how often should ask for upload?
> > Did you receive a notification for the comment that was added on this page ? > http://mentors.debian.net/package/vavoom no i've added what was missing to the changelog (DEP-5, DEP-3, wrap-and-sort,etc) i thought that kind of changes were not necesary to be added to changelog, policy disagrees with me i'm playing with hardened flags now -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528205047.gb5...@io.zumbi.com.ar
Re: Bug#554167: Updating Mawk in Debian
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 02:48:02PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi Yann,
>
> yannubu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > any news about updating Mawk with the last upstream version?
>
> I don't think it can happen and be properly tested in time for wheezy.
> The new upstream version has significant changes relative to the
> packaged version and probably introduces some (minor or not)
> regressions. (For example, the -W i option didn't work in Turkic
> locales the last time I checked, because toupper('i') is not 'I'.)
>
> What would be very helpful is code review. For example, collect
> a batch of twenty or so patches (e.g., changes up to 1.3.3-20090705)
> from [1] or straight from Thomas. File a bug that lists the patches,
> their purpose, potential regressions, and how that potential can be
> mitigated. Then I would be happy to help get those patches applied
> in experimental.
I don't recall seeing any comments from Steve on this.
> Another way to help is to get the code history up to the present in a
> readable state, to help that same effort. That basically means:
>
> * improve the "rcs fast-export" tool[2]. All improvements are good. :)
It needs work. I commented on what I'd done a couple of months ago,
but saw no replies. (At the moment I'm actually working on mawk).
>Packaging it for Debian would be great because then we get a
>bugtracker. If you can get the raw RCS files to test changes, that
>might make this task easier.
I have in mind creating a git-bundle using my fixed-up rcs-fast-export
(as an export-only...).
> * collect more changes (in RCS or git bundle form) and let me know
>so I can update [1] to include the updated code.
>
> Testing is of course also welcome.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Jonathan
>
> [1] http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jrnieder-guest/mawk-historical.git
> [2] http://wok.oblomov.eu/tecnologia/rcs-fast-export/
>
>
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Updating Mawk in Debian
Dear all, any news about updating Mawk with the last upstream version? Regards Yann 2012/5/28 Gert Hulselmans > The Debian version of mawk has a lot of bugs (v1.3.3) > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=mawk;dist=unstable > > Thomas Dickey (other dev than the original mawk dev) has an improved > version of mawk (without those bugs): > ftp://invisible-island.net/mawk/ > > but for some reason the debian maintainer doesn't want to update. > > > Thomas Dickey: > > > If the Debian packager were responding, it would be about a week. > However, he's ignored most of my bug reports (aside from the one > about incorrect license). > > Look here - I've marked fixed-upstream on the ones that I believe are > done... > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=mawk > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mawk/+bug/400409 > > > I use the fixed version of mawk a lot for my work. > > If you can force the debian maintainer to update mawk, I would be happy. > > I tried it a while back, but failed. > > One of my bug reports at Ubuntu (still not any comment on it): > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mawk/+bug/716920 > > It would be nice to get it bumped by somebody else. > > - Gert > > 2012/5/27 yannubu...@gmail.com : > > Hello Gert, > > > > Mawk package description says, that "Mawk is smaller and much faster than > > gawk". > > What about using Mawk instead of Gawk in BIS ? > > > > Regards > > Yann >
Re: Updating Mawk in Debian
Hi Yann,
yannubu...@gmail.com wrote:
> any news about updating Mawk with the last upstream version?
I don't think it can happen and be properly tested in time for wheezy.
The new upstream version has significant changes relative to the
packaged version and probably introduces some (minor or not)
regressions. (For example, the -W i option didn't work in Turkic
locales the last time I checked, because toupper('i') is not 'I'.)
What would be very helpful is code review. For example, collect
a batch of twenty or so patches (e.g., changes up to 1.3.3-20090705)
from [1] or straight from Thomas. File a bug that lists the patches,
their purpose, potential regressions, and how that potential can be
mitigated. Then I would be happy to help get those patches applied
in experimental.
Another way to help is to get the code history up to the present in a
readable state, to help that same effort. That basically means:
* improve the "rcs fast-export" tool[2]. All improvements are good. :)
Packaging it for Debian would be great because then we get a
bugtracker. If you can get the raw RCS files to test changes, that
might make this task easier.
* collect more changes (in RCS or git bundle form) and let me know
so I can update [1] to include the updated code.
Testing is of course also welcome.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
[1] http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jrnieder-guest/mawk-historical.git
[2] http://wok.oblomov.eu/tecnologia/rcs-fast-export/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528194801.GE14606@burratino
Re: Getting rid of control messages revisited
Hi, On Thu, 24 May 2012, Arno Töll wrote: > [*] jwilk looked into the code and it /seems/ to me, the "bts" > subscription does not contain control messages, whereas "bts-control" > control does. Can anyone verify this? I confirm this. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528194352.gt18...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
Re: RFS: new powertop version
Hello, I prepared a new version, which keeps the changes in the rules minimal but since upstream changed the building process a little bit, minimal changes were needed to get it build. The massive changes of the copyright file were also needed so that it would be machine readable according to the specifications in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/. The source files with a build for amd64 can be found under http://rbw.goe.net/jw/. I also saw, that since yesterday there is an NMU by Gregor Herrmann pending, which addresses the release critical bug #667329. So if it is not possible to push the new release via NMU at least the RC bug is fixed anyway. With best regards, Julian Wollrath -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201205281927.56824.jwollr...@web.de
Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing
Jonathan McCrohan scripsit: > During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was > discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable > files. An example of these files are the fonts/8859-*.flc files. These > files contain the following paragraph: "Unicode, Inc. specifically > excludes the right to re-distribute this file directly to third > parties or other organizations whether for profit or not". Those should simply be replaced by the verbatim contents of the corresponding files at http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859 . In addition, the jis0201.flc file should be replaced likewise by the verbatim contents of http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/OBSOLETE/EASTASIA/JIS/JIS0201.TXT . (Don't worry, the mapping is not obsolete; that's just a hint that Unicode Inc. isn't maintaining these files -- but this one doesn't actually need any maintenance.) The other *.flc files were written by me (or Glenn and me, in the case of upper.flc), and should be under the same license as FIGlet itself. -- The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan free-range chickens (except they have http://www.ccil.org/~cowan teeth, arms instead of wings, and dinosaurlike tails).--Elyse Grasso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528164359.gh24...@mercury.ccil.org
Bug#667994: marked as done (RFS: stl-manual/3.30-13 [ITA])
Your message dated Mon, 28 May 2012 16:14:14 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: stl-manual/3.30-13 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #667994, regarding RFS: stl-manual/3.30-13 [ITA] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 667994: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667994 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "stl-manual" * Package name: stl-manual Version : 3.30-13 Upstream Author : SGI * URL : http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/ * License : Section : doc It builds those binary packages: stl-manual - C++-STL documentation in HTML To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/stl-manual Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stl-manual/stl-manual_3.30-13.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3 * ITA for #654555 Regards, cento --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package stl-manual version 3.30-13 is in unstable now. http://packages.qa.debian.org/stl-manual --- End Message ---
Re: how often should ask for upload?
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:55:16PM -0300, gustavo panizzo wrote: > hi > > after getting my first pkg in debian, i wonder how often should i > prepare new revisions of it I have no general answer to that, but I see that bug 674339 should be fixed as soon as possible. > and ask to potential sponsors to upload it > to the archive? Your package at mentors is marked "needs a sponsor = yes", so you're OK at the moment about asking for a sponsor. > > should i wait until the pkg has a many bugs? Some bugs are more important/urgent than others. > or each bug deserves an upload? I don't think so, no. Did you receive a notification for the comment that was added on this page ? http://mentors.debian.net/package/vavoom Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528161022.gc20...@master.debian.org
how often should ask for upload?
hi after getting my first pkg in debian, i wonder how often should i prepare new revisions of it and ask to potential sponsors to upload it to the archive? should i wait until the pkg has a many bugs? or each bug deserves an upload? thanks -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528155516.ga24...@io.zumbi.com.ar
Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Ian Chai wrote: > Will Bob Marten's suggestion to replace the current fonts/8859-*.flc with > ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT solve the problem, > then? If so, I vote that we go ahead and do that. Agreed. Let's allow a few days for FIGlet authors and Fedora guys to review the proposed change, and in the meantime I'll fix the regression test script to work correctly in OSX. If changes are greenlighted we can then release 2.2.5 with all licensing issues resolved. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cagfwt5eg6gyquee1nw19o16fjxqjh+jm0zb0-atm8wndxkf...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing
On 28/05/2012 18:42, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: It would be great to have these issues solved so that figlet could continue to be included in the next Debian release. Will Bob Marten's suggestion to replace the current fonts/8859-*.flc with ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT solve the problem, then? If so, I vote that we go ahead and do that. Failing which, I suggest taking out the offending files from the Debian release and giving a more limited package that contains only freely-distributable files. God bless, Ian -- Note: ianjuli...@gmail.com is only Ian -- to reach Juliane, please use julc...@gmail.com (ianc...@gmail.com was already taken by someone else.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fc37052.3090...@gmail.com
RFS: gnustep-back/0.22.0-1 [RC]
Dear mentors, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "gnustep-back". This upload would fix #663388 and #666334. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-back/gnustep-back_0.22.0-1.dsc Changes: gnustep-back (0.22.0-1) experimental; urgency=low * New major upstream release. * debian/rules (v_gui): Bump to 0.22, which depends on -base 1.24 which in turn does not lead to the automatic creation of $HOME/GNUstep (Closes: #663388). Don't include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make; remove patch/unpatch depedencies. Enable hardening. * debian/control.m4 (Build-Depends): Remove quilt. Add libxcursor-dev. (Depends, Suggests): Replace ttf-freefont with fonts-freefont-ttf. (Replaces, Breaks, Provides): Remove; no longer needed. (gnustep-back-dbg) : Set to libgnustep-gui0.22-dbg. (Standards-Version): Set to 3.9.3; no changes required. * debian/control: Regenerate. * debian/source/format: Switch to 3.0 (quilt) so that patches are always applied (Closes: #666334). * debian/README.source: Delete; redundant. * debian/gnustep-back-common.preinst: Remove defoma cleanup code. * debian/gnustep-back-common.prerm: Likewise. Also delete unowned files/directories under /var. * debian/patches/cairo-fc.patch: Refresh. * debian/patches/autoreconf.patch: Regenerate. * debian/patches/format-security.patch: New, fixes FTBFS with -Werror=format-security; thanks Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre / Ubuntu. * debian/patches/series: Update. * debian/copyright: Update copyright years. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obp832u2.GNUs_Not_Unix!%ya...@gnu.org
Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing
[Please keep cc: list intact, so people don't have to subscribe to the
non-public figlet mailinglist]
Hi all,
During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was
discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable
files. An example of these files are the fonts/8859-*.flc files. These
files contain the following paragraph: "Unicode, Inc. specifically
excludes the right to re-distribute this file directly to third
parties or other organizations whether for profit or not".
Bart Martens has helpfully suggested that the files could be replaced
by the following re-distributable file [2].
This problem also affects existing 2.2.2-1 packages that currently
exist in unstable, testing, stable and oldstable [3], and will result
in these packages being removed from Debian until the issue is solved
[4].
I have since noticed that there has also been activity recently on the
fedora bug tracker regarding the same issue [5].
It would be great to have these issues solved so that figlet could
continue to be included in the next Debian release.
Many thanks,
Jon
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=673096#18
[2] ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674844
[4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674850
[5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642#c27
On 14 May 2012 11:46, Claudio Matsuoka wrote:
> The standard font set ("ours") is certainly safe to be in main. Being
> the C-64 collection not subject to copyright, only 3x5 remains to be
> checked.
>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Ian Chai wrote:
>> Glenn & I had every intention when we made up FIGlet that it be "freely
>> usable by everyone as long as they acknowledge". That was our original
>> intention and so we fully endorse taking steps to get it into the free
>> section of Debian.
>>
>> If some third-party font copyrights turn out to be the problem, can we at
>> least get the standard set into the free section?
>>
>>
>> On 14 May 2012 07:38, John Cowan wrote:
>>>
>>> Claudio Matsuoka scripsit:
>>>
>>> > Some controversy arose, however, on the license terms of some
>>> > contributed fonts (all of them outside the main package). I'll contact
>>> > the author of the 3x5 font to resolve one of these issues, but I'm not
>>> > sure about the C-64 fonts. Are 8-bit computer bitmapped console font
>>> > shapes (not files) covered by specific copyrights, or can we consider
>>> > them to be in public domain? Maybe you could check that with someone
>>> > in the Debian legal team?
>>>
>>> Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are
>>> considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual
>>> *appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered
>>> just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are
>>> computer programs, though, and are copyrightable.
>>>
>>> Thus my Figlet fonts in the bdffonts directory, which are based on the X
>>> bitmap fonts, as well as anything from the C-64 world, are safely public
>>> domain in the U.S. In Europe it may be a different story in principle,
>>> but the chances that anyone will sue are essentially nil. Such lawsuits
>>> are very expensive and there is no hope of any financial gain by them.
>>> What is more, the bdffonts have MIT-ish licenses, though the copyright
>>> notices are probably invalid.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/calouzp1ifijqdnvawmyymhabxsggopub0doo8o_iadcdvtz...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1
On 28 May 2012 10:05, Bart Martens wrote: > Please remove the package figlet 2.2.4-1 from mentors uploaded there at > 2012-05-28 00:23, because having that package there is a form of > re-distribution. http://mentors.debian.net/package/figlet I have removed this from mentors.d.n now. On 28 May 2012 11:06, Bart Martens wrote: > This seems an easy solution for figlet 2.2.4-1 : > ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT Thanks. I'll point this email to the figlet mailing list. Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/calouzp2urzefzcnsctae2edmkz6h7c7w1v7g_amyl3dvvnd...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1
Hi Jonathan, This seems an easy solution for figlet 2.2.4-1 : ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528100608.ga17...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1
Hi Jonathan, Please remove the package figlet 2.2.4-1 from mentors uploaded there at 2012-05-28 00:23, because having that package there is a form of re-distribution. http://mentors.debian.net/package/figlet Note that you can still package figlet for Debian, if you want that, but then the license problem must be solved before figlet can re-enter Debian. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528090527.ga1...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from unstable, testing, stable and oldstable. The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528085807.gc26...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1
Bart Martens writes: > The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is > that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license contains a license which > "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute". I filed a bug to keep track of this (#674844). Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d35ovhri@deep-thought.43-1.org
Bug#671731: RFS: leechcraft/0.5.70+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- modular internet-client
Package was updated to new release. Current direct link for download: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/leechcraft/leechcraft_0.5.70+dfsg-1.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1633231338191...@web16d.yandex.ru
