Atsuhito Kohda ko...@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp wrote:
Well, jtex-bin was in Debian main untill recently with the
copyright. But I think Debian requires more clear, complete
copyright recently. It is not a bad thing, of course.
ftpmaster claimed Please document all licenses and copyright
Atsuhito Kohda ko...@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp wrote:
I wonder who can write a sufficient copyright file of TeX
so I'm not sure we can upload a fixed JTeX or not but we will
try to do so anyway.
What's the specific problem? Of course TeXlive has a valid copyright
for TeX, the program. Or well,
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:15:37 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Atsuhito Kohda ko...@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp wrote:
I wonder who can write a sufficient copyright file of TeX
so I'm not sure we can upload a fixed JTeX or not but we will
try to do so anyway.
What's the specific problem? Of course
reassign 565886 jtex-bin
retitle needs to be rebuild with libkpathsea5 as it was done with ptex
thanks
That needs to be fixed in jtex-bin, which is an unofficial port package
and I have not even an idea where to get the sources for it.
Best wishes
Norbert
On 19.01.10 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
Hi,
That needs to be fixed in jtex-bin, which is an unofficial port
package and I have not even an idea where to get the sources for
it.
http://bugs.debian.org/553905
H.
--
Q: How do you save a drowning lawyer?
A: Throw him
On Di, 19 Jan 2010, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
That needs to be fixed in jtex-bin, which is an unofficial port
package and I have not even an idea where to get the sources for
it.
http://bugs.debian.org/553905
So then, we should close this bug, right?
Best wishes
Norbert
On 19.01.10 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
On Di, 19 Jan 2010, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
That needs to be fixed in jtex-bin, which is an unofficial port
package and I have not even an idea where to get the sources for
it.
http://bugs.debian.org/553905
So then, we
On Di, 19 Jan 2010, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/553905
So then, we should close this bug, right?
It is in state closed.
I meant 565886 ... that is a bug against an already removed package ...
Best wishes
Norbert
On 19.01.10 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
On Di, 19 Jan 2010, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/553905
So then, we should close this bug, right?
It is in state closed.
I meant 565886
Me too. Ben reassigned a closed bug, no clue why.
H.
--
Now I
Hi all,
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:45:40 +0100, Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote:
On Di, 19 Jan 2010, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/553905
So then, we should close this bug, right?
It is in state closed.
I meant 565886 ... that is a bug against an already
10 matches
Mail list logo
