Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?

2013-01-25 Thread Thomas Girard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, On 23/01/2013 22:16, Ralf Treinen wrote: the source package is now available at http://people.debian.org/~treinen/ace/ I would appreciate if you could check that everything is fine before I will upload it to sid. If possible I would

Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?

2013-01-23 Thread Thomas Girard
Hello, On 23/01/2013 08:39, Ralf Treinen wrote: OK. Here is what I will try tonight when I get back from work: - repack the orig.tar.gz without the two windows executables, the TAO source tree, and the files in examples/ that are under Addison Wesley licence. There is something slightly

Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?

2013-01-23 Thread Ralf Treinen
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:28:00PM +0100, Thomas Girard wrote: Hello, On 23/01/2013 08:39, Ralf Treinen wrote: OK. Here is what I will try tonight when I get back from work: - repack the orig.tar.gz without the two windows executables, the TAO source tree, and the files in examples/

Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?

2013-01-22 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Ralf Treinen trei...@free.fr wrote: Hello, I may help with uploading an ace with a repackaged source if necessary. In your opinion, which files would have to be dropped ? How would dropping parts of the source affect the packaging ? Most of the files

Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?

2013-01-22 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Girard thomas.g.gir...@free.frwrote: On 22/01/2013 21:40, Ralf Treinen wrote: I'm more annoyed by #697848. The first two issues raised by Ansgar were not yet discussed with upstream because I need a confirmation on what is exactly the issue. If this

Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?

2013-01-22 Thread Ralf Treinen
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:30:14PM +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: Can we try to get that code relicensed? I'd say Remedy, OCI and even the very DOC Group are infringing the license themselves by redistributing and modifying[*] this code. [*] I have not checked the SVN