Bug#778728: RFS: task/2.4.1-1 [ITA] -- feature-rich console based todo list manager
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:04:28AM (+0100), Tobias Frost wrote: Hi Sebastien, Thanks for adopting the package. I will sponsor your upload. (However, I cannot do it now, but I will do a througouh review tonight or tomorrow) Hi Tobias, Sorry for the delay, and many thanks for the review and valuable comments! Some first remarks: - I recommend to avoid uploading a new upstream version to sid during the freeze. Use experimental. You are right, I've just fixed that. - please integrate get-orig-source.sh into d/rules if it is still required (is the new source now DFSG compliant? If so, document that in the changelog!) The upstream tgz is still not DFSG compliant, we still remove pdf doc files (#737478). - please update d/rules to short debhelper format It's more cleaner now \o/ I think it's ok now. - please upgrade to debhelper compat level 9 - please cleanup d/patches for patches applied upstream and check if not-forwarded patches should be forwarded Fixed, also suffixed by .patch extension and prefixed by a number id. - you can drop the B-D version constraint on dpkg-dev -- even oldstable fulfilles it A relic of the past :-) - can you please check if the override for conflicts-with-version is valid? (I did not check the details, so this could be wrong; it just smells like you want to have Replaces: and Breaks: here, see Policy 7.6.1) If you do a change here, be sure to properly test this. Just checked, and according Policy §7.6.1 I've replaced Conflicts by Breaks, It seems working. Thanks again for the help! Seb -- Sebastien Badia signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#778728: RFS: task/2.4.1-1 [ITA] -- feature-rich console based todo list manager
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 08:52:35PM (+0100), Tobias Frost wrote: Ok, continuing... - please document every change in d/changelog. For example, the change in the patch no-task-rel.patch is not documented (there are more, non mentioned changes on the patches) - (for clarifaction of above: with cleanup patches I mean delete old patches no longer needed.) - the upstream tarball is not identical with yours. The original upstream tarball does not include taskwarrior test-suite, for this reason, we use GIT source tree. - You say tasksh is now a separate project and no longer included in this package -- does this need a NEWS.Debian file (refer to Developer Reference 6.3.4) You are right, I've just fixed that. - do you really need tar-ignore in debian/source/options? When building with debuild, the build hangs after while: (However, in pbuilder it builds) Yes! It's because I've not included python and git in BD (requirement for the test suite…) Michel also provide a patch in order to fix the generated binary locations (in the build env). It's now fixed, the package builds correctly in a sid clean schroot: $ curl http://pub.sebian.fr/pub/task_2.4.1%2Bdfsg-1_amd64-20150301-2253.build (...) [ 98%] make[4]: Entering directory '/home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj' make[4]: Nothing to be done for 'test/CMakeFiles/eval.t.dir/build'. make[4]: Leaving directory '/home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj' /usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_report /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj/CMakeFiles 42 Built target variant_xor.t [100%] Built target eval.t /usr/bin/make -f test/CMakeFiles/test.dir/build.make test/CMakeFiles/test.dir/depend make[4]: Entering directory '/home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj' cd /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj /usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_depends Unix Makefiles /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1 /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/test /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj/test /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj/test/CMakeFiles/test.dir/DependInfo.cmake --color= Scanning dependencies of target test make[4]: Leaving directory '/home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj' /usr/bin/make -f test/CMakeFiles/test.dir/build.make test/CMakeFiles/test.dir/build make[4]: Entering directory '/home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj' cd /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/obj/test ./run_all --verbose # /home/tobi/workspace/deb/mentors/task/task-2.4.1/test/abbreviation.t Bottom line it does not look bad. However, please use this opportunity to create a state-of-the-art package and especially look at the DFSG change. The DFSG change seems legit, according Jakub bug (737478) Let me know what you think about the points. I completely agree with your points, I've just fixed the package according your remarks and uploaded on mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/task http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/task/task_2.4.1+dfsg-1.dsc Or through the living GIT repository on collab-maint: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/task.git Thanks again for your reviews! Let me know if other things are not OK. Seb -- Sebastien Badia signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#779377: RFS: classified-ads/0.03-1 / ITP
Am Samstag, den 28.02.2015, 17:17 +0200 schrieb Antti Järvinen: Tobias Frost writes: Am Samstag, den 28.02.2015, 12:16 +1100 schrieb Riley Baird: .. should fix them, also please read https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide -- you definitly need to separate upstream source and debian packaging; don't ship a debian dir in the tarball. Ok, thanks a million for your good comments Tobias and Riley, there seems to be things that did not cross my mind yet .. :) But, before attempting to address the listed problems I'd like to get clarification on a few unclear items: - Mixing OpenSSL with LGPL is ok and requires no license-statement acrobatics? While I'm the upstream, switching the license from GPL to LGPL is possible and would also suit well together Licensing can be tricky. You can also stay with GPL: https://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html Plain GPL is problematic, but can get around with openssl exception as quoted exemplantory in that link. Another option is, of course, to avoid openssl and port your program to use e.g GNUTLS. (note: For relicensing you need the ok from all copyright holdes. If you had contributors, you need to ask or have asked them via contributors agreeement) with the fact that the text editor code from Nokia is in LGPL too.. LGPL and GPL is compatible, so no problem. - ..about the debian directory in the tarball: as it is handy to have the build-related items in same version control with the sw what do people normally do? Maybe rename the directory debian to something else and the re-re-name when it is actually needed? Or just delete directory from the tarball, making it impossible to simply fetch latest .tar.gz from version control to be treated as original sources? It might cause problems at Debian. The benefit is also limited, as you can not guarantee that Debian's package is always in sync with your upstream tarball. Imagine a NMUs as an example or the fact that it not necessary to always release a new upstream version when you only need to fix a Debian issue. The implementation details are up to you, just don't have it in the tarball. My recommendation: If you want to have it your repository, have it in its own branch. Otherwise, make a own repository, using a git-buildpackage layout, and sometime, when you are more involved in Debian, we'll get you an account at alioth and we move it to collab-maint, if you're ok with maintaining it within collab-maint. http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.html https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/CollabMaint - The Lenin photograph, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper#mediaviewer/File:Lenin_reading_Pravda.gif is by Pyotr Otsup who was not credited in copyright. The file is in the public domain in most countries yes, but is it still a problem to have it included, if there is some imaginary country that for instance grants eternal copyright to every graphical item? Copyright's tricky, too. Paul answered this question already. From the packaging perspective, you need to document *all* copyrights in debian/copyright. Every file needs to be covered! (makeu sure to the dep5 documentation as you can combine several files into one section; just to avoid that you'll have a section per file then...) BTW, How's about that turtle? - Supposing I can somehow fix the pending problems, what should I do next after that? dput yet another version and make a notice about that in comments of this bug #779377 or maybe file another bug report or what? just re-upload to mentors, and reply to this RFS bug with the changes you did (basically quoting my mail and briefly say on every point what you did.) I'll pick up from there. Don't file another bug. Another note: d/changelog always says only Initial Release (Closes:#your-ITP-Bug) for new packages -- you do not elaborate the above fixes or progress on package, remove old versions from it. Thanks for your patience, -- Antti Järvinen No problem, every start is difficult. Afterall, I hope that you also start packaging other packages, and the second package will already be much easier ;-) Happy contributing! -- tobi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#779486: RFS: pylama/6.2.0-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pylama * Package name: pylama Version : 6.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Kirill Klenov horn...@gmail.com * URL : https://github.com/klen/pylama * License : LGPL-3 Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-pylama - Code audit tool for Python and JavaScript - Python 2.x python3-pylama - Code audit tool for Python and JavaScript - Python 3.x To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pylama Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pylama/pylama_6.2.0-1.dsc More information about pylama can be obtained from https://github.com/klen/pylama Regards, Federico Gimenez fgime...@canonical.com
Re: Python logo license
Am Samstag, den 28.02.2015, 18:05 +0100 schrieb Niels Thykier: On 2015-02-28 16:37, Daniel Stender wrote: Hi folks, I've got the official Python logo image [1] here in a package. 1) what would be the proper license for that file in deb/copyright? 2) what's the best place in Debian to ask copyright/licensing related questions like this in the future, the developer's list? Thanks in advance, Daniel Stender [1] https://www.python.org/static/community_logos/python-logo-master-v3-TM.png Hi Daniel, 1) The python logo is subject to the PSF Trademark Usage Policy[1][2]. At a quick glance, it looks like it is distributable, but I doubt it complies with the DFSG. 2) If it is about whether a license is DFSG, you probably want either debian-le...@lists.debian.org or debian-mentors. I suspect that debian-mentors is faster when it is trivial to determine whether something is DFSG-compliant, but you may be punted to debian-legal or the FTP masters for sufficiently obscure licenses. Hope that answers your questions, ~Niels [1] https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ [2] https://www.python.org/community/logos/ The logo seems to be non-free, there are strong rules in the tradmark policy concerning commercial uses, for example: Commercial uses (which includes any use where you sell these items for money) require permission from PSF. Also, there are restrictions on derived work, like on the logo page under Guidelines for Usage: However, please ask first when using a derived version of the logo (...) my 2cent... IANAL. -- tobi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1425211420.10063.5.ca...@debian.org
btpd torrent client lost in history
Hello! I wanted to package `btpd` (git://github.com/btpd/btpd.git). `querybts` says nothing, but I found ubuntu package which is based on Debian packaging from times of standards 3.9.0. Now btpd is not in Debian. Where can I find what happened to it, can I revive it and where is last debianization repository? [Please, keep in CC.] -- Best regards, Dmitry Bogatov kact...@gnu.org, Free Software supporter, esperantisto and netiquette guardian. GPG: 54B7F00D pgpgC5zCCxYvM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: btpd torrent client lost in history
Now btpd is not in Debian. Where can I find what happened to it, can I revive it and where is last debianization repository? From this bug, it seems that it never was in Debian at all: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/158447 The links to the repositories are contained in the above report, but I'm not sure how accurate they are. pgprL5lAuOXJR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#768879: marked as done (RFS: sfarkxtc/0~20130812git80b1da3-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:57:37 + with message-id e1ys93z-0005eq...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: sfarkxtc/0~20130812git80b1da3-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #768879, regarding RFS: sfarkxtc/0~20130812git80b1da3-1 [ITP] 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.) -- 768879: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768879 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package sfarkxtc * Package name: sfarkxtc Version : 0.20130812git80b1da3-1 Upstream Author : Andy Inman * URL : https://github.com/raboof/sfarkxtc * License : GPL-3+ Section : sound It builds those binary packages: sfarkxtc To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://bugs.debian.org/768173 The package can be downloaded with: git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-multimedia/sfarkxtc.git Changes since the last upload: Initial release (Closes: #768173) Regards, Ruben Undheim ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package sfarkxtc has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
Bug#765518: marked as done (RFS: jabberd2/2.2.17+dfsg1-1 [RC])
Your message dated Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:57:35 + with message-id e1ys93x-0005ee...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: jabberd2/2.2.17+dfsg1-1 [RC] has caused the Debian Bug report #765518, regarding RFS: jabberd2/2.2.17+dfsg1-1 [RC] 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.) -- 765518: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765518 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor to upload a new version of jabberd2: * Package name: jabberd2 Version : 2.2.17+dfsg1-1 Upstream Author : Tomasz Sterna * URL : http://jabberd2.org/ * License : GPL-2+ Section : net It builds those binary packages: jabberd2 - Jabber instant messenger server To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/jabberd2 Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/jabberd2/jabberd2_2.2.17+dfsg1-1.dsc More information about jabberd2 can be obtained from http://jabberd2.org I and Willem have been working on the package, but have been unable to find a DD to do the upload, see discussions on the pkg-xmpp-devel list: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xmpp-devel/2014-September/001669.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xmpp-devel/2014-August/thread.html This update cleans up the package and fixes the licensing issue which is release-critical. Changes since the last upload: jabberd2 (2.2.17+dfsg1-1) unstable; urgency=medium [ Simon Josefsson ] * debian/copyright: updated (Thanks to Simon Josefsson). * debian/watch: updated link (Thanks to Simon Josefsson). * Repackaged tarball without non-free docs/code/jquery.js. Closes: #742894. * Use dversionmangle in watch file. * Add shlib-calls-exit and spelling-error-in-copyright to lintian-overrides. * Add debian/README.source. * Make --twice builds work (added debian/source/options). [ Willem van den Akker ] * Bump standards to 3.9.5 (no changes). * debian/control: added Simon Josefsson to uploaders. -- Willem van den Akker wvdak...@wilsoft.nl Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:14:47 +0200 Regards, Simon signature.asc Description: PGP signature ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package jabberd2 has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
Bug#764776: marked as done (RFS: webalizer/2.23.08-2)
Your message dated Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:57:39 + with message-id e1ys93b-0005fe...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: webalizer/2.23.08-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #764776, regarding RFS: webalizer/2.23.08-2 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.) -- 764776: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764776 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package webalizer * Package name: webalizer Version : 2.23.08-2 Upstream Author : Bradford L. Barrett b...@mrunix.net * URL : http://www.mrunix.net/webalizer/ * License : GPL-2+ Section : web It builds those binary packages: webalizer - web server log analysis program To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/webalizer Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/webalizer/webalizer_2.23.08-2.dsc My packaging work is currently on collab-maint: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/webalizer.git/ Changes since the last upload: * Add Slovak po-debconf translation, thanks Slavko. Closes: #688906 * Fix VCS-* field (Lintian) * Change dh compat to 9 for hardening flags * Updated Policy to 3.9.5 without changes. * Added a note in README.Debian about other_vhost log. Closes: #681868 * Added a debconf question to generate the config file. Closes: #482368 * Suggest some ttf fonts. Closes: #604428 * Recommends: geoip-database. Closes: #532123 * Fix in cron job from Niccolo Rigacci, thanks. Closes: #741515 * Debconf translation: - Dutch (Frans Spiesschaert). Closes: #763863 * New patch to add python script to convert lang file to po file * Updated webalizer fr.po in gettest_po-files.diff using convertlang2po.py plus some more manual editing. Regards, Julien Viard de Galbert -- Julien Viard de Galbertjul...@vdg.blogsite.org http://silicone.homelinux.org/ jul...@silicone.homelinux.org GPG Key ID: D00E52B6 Published on: hkp://keys.gnupg.net Key Fingerprint: E312 A31D BEC3 74CC C49E 6D69 8B30 6538 D00E 52B6 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package webalizer has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
Bug#768878: marked as done (RFS: sfarklib/2.23+20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:57:34 + with message-id e1ys93w-0005ei...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: sfarklib/2.23+20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #768878, regarding RFS: sfarklib/2.23+20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP] 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.) -- 768878: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768878 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package sfarklib * Package name: sfarklib Version : 0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 Upstream Author : Andy Inman * URL : https://github.com/raboof/sfArkLib * License : GPL-3+ Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libsfark0 libsfark-dev libsfark0-dbg To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://bugs.debian.org/768169 The package can be downloaded with: git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-multimedia/sfarklib.git Changes since the last upload: Initial release (Closes: #768169) Regards, Ruben Undheim ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package sfarklib has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
Bug#764520: marked as done (RFS: 4pane/3.0-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:57:34 + with message-id e1ys93w-0005ew...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: 4pane/3.0-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #764520, regarding RFS: 4pane/3.0-1 [ITP] 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.) -- 764520: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764520 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package 4pane * Package name: 4pane Version : 3.0-1 Upstream Author : David Hart debian.4p...@dfgh.net * URL : http://4Pane.co.uk * License : GPL3 Section : x11 It builds those binary packages: 4pane - four-pane detailed-list file manager To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/4pane Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/4/4pane/4pane_3.0-1.dsc More information about 4Pane can be obtained from http://4Pane.co.uk. 4Pane is a multi-pane, detailed-list file manager. Though anyone can use it, it is aimed more at the expert than the average user, with extra features such as multiple undo and redo, multiple renaming and user-defined tools. Since the initial release in 2008, 4Pane has been taken up by a few distros, most notably Arch and PCLinuxOS, and it's now in openMandriva's 'cooker'. I have been creating on-site packages since 2008, so I do have some packaging experience. Apart from a necessary override, the uploaded package is lintian-clean. Regards, David Hart ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package 4pane has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
Bug#764822: marked as done (RFS: libjs-zxcvbn/1.0+dfsg.2-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:57:34 + with message-id e1ys93w-0005em...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: libjs-zxcvbn/1.0+dfsg.2-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #764822, regarding RFS: libjs-zxcvbn/1.0+dfsg.2-1 [ITP] 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.) -- 764822: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764822 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Control: tags 726171 + pending Control: block 726171 by -1 I am looking for a sponsor for my package ‘libjs-zxcvbn’: Package name: libjs-zxcvbn Version : 1.0+dfsg.2-1 Upstream Author : Dan Wheeler d...@dropbox.com URL : https://tech.dropbox.com/2012/04/zxcvbn-realistic-password-strength-estimation/ License : Expat Section : web It builds these binary packages: libjs-zxcvbn - realistic password strength estimation — JavaScript library You can get the package with ‘dget’: $ dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libj/libjs-zxcvbn/libjs-zxcvbn_1.0+dfsg.2-1.dsc More information about ‘zxcvbn’ can be obtained from URL:https://mentors.debian.net/package/libjs-zxcvbn and in the ITP bug report URL:http://bugs.debian.org/726171. This release contains the following significant changes: * Updated re-pack of upstream source, this time preserving source data files. * Add copyright information for source data files. * Cached data files are source, don't clobber them. Thanks to Eriberto Mota eribe...@debian.org for reviewing an earlier release of this package. -- \ “[T]he question of whether machines can think … is about as | `\ relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.” | _o__) —Edsger W. Dijkstra | Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package libjs-zxcvbn has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
