Bug#1063896: marked as done (RFS: xsnow/1:3.7.8-1 -- brings Christmas to your desktop)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:28:04 +0100 with message-id <676cff94-7e76-481d-987b-0bcaddec8...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: xsnow/1:3.7.8-1 -- brings Christmas to your desktop has caused the Debian Bug report #1063896, regarding RFS: xsnow/1:3.7.8-1 -- brings Christmas to your desktop 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.) -- 1063896: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1063896 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "xsnow": * Package name : xsnow Version : 1:3.7.8-1 Upstream contact : Willem Vermin * URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/xsnow/ * License : GPL-3+ * Vcs : [fill in URL of packaging vcs] Section : games The source builds the following binary packages: xsnow - brings Christmas to your desktop To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/xsnow/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xsnow/xsnow_3.7.8-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: xsnow (1:3.7.8-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release Regards, Willem Vermin --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for the update!--- End Message ---
Re: Does a rejected package require a version bump?
Not needed. Using the same version and revision is fine. On 2/13/24 22:32, Loren M. Lang wrote: My original submission was rejected while in the FTP Master's NEW queue and required a minor correction. Should I bump the version with a new changelog entry when I resubmit it or should I just keep it at the initial entry?
Bug#1063896: RFS: xsnow/1:3.7.8-1 -- brings Christmas to your desktop
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "xsnow": * Package name : xsnow Version : 1:3.7.8-1 Upstream contact : Willem Vermin * URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/xsnow/ * License : GPL-3+ * Vcs : [fill in URL of packaging vcs] Section : games The source builds the following binary packages: xsnow - brings Christmas to your desktop To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/xsnow/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xsnow/xsnow_3.7.8-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: xsnow (1:3.7.8-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release Regards, Willem Vermin
Bug#1063884: RFS: python-autodocsumm/0.2.12-1 [ITP] -- API that automatically extends sphinx (common documentation)
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 00:02:45 -0300 marcosrcarvalh...@gmail.com wrote: * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-autodocsum The package source is not available in the git repo. Please push and then ask for sponsoring on IRC channel #debian-python.
Re: Handling a file with mixed copyrights
On 14/02/2024 03:03, Loren M. Lang wrote: I have a project where most files are under the original author copyright and license, but within one source file, there is a different copyright as it is copied from another source. The section of code in question is delineated with comments indicating the start and end. It is under a different copyright and license that the rest of the file or source tree, in general. How should I best indicate this in d/copyright? My current approach is to have a Files: * stanza which is the majority of the source tree and a separate Files: stanza pointing to this specific file with it's copyright and license. In the comments property, I'll indicate that this stanza only applies to a section of this file as delineated by comments and that the rest of the file should be in the default copyright and license listed above. Is this sufficient? The way you have written it right now means that src/resources/resource_storage.rs is only licensed under Apache-2.0 or MIT. If I understand correctly, the rest of the file is licensed under MPL-2.0. The correct license for the file is therefore: Apache-2.0 or MIT, and MPL-2.0. The comma is necessary to override the higher priority of `and'. This matches the example in section 7.2 of the Machine-readable debian/copyright file specification at https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/. Here is the code in question: https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust/blob/dd970f26bc5877bef68f9e29d26db19c2f65b34b/src/resources/resource_storage.rs#L23 And here is my current example: https://salsa.debian.org/penguin359/debcargo-conf/-/blob/e8d22158840e1e40385e7f01dceaa0074b4d37e4/src/adblock/debian/copyright#L32 Thanks, -- Vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Victor Westerhuis
