://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNU_Free_Documentation_License_.28GFDL.29
to give some reasonable advise to them I'm reading
Data licensed under the FDL with no invariant sections are considered
DFSG-free as of GR 2006-001:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#outcome
So before I confuse upstream could
Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
I realised that lintian is claiming:
$ dget http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emboss/emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
$ lintian emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
E: emboss source: license-problem-gfdl-invariants doc/manuals/admin.tex
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:09:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
I realised that lintian is claiming:
$ dget http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emboss/emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
$ lintian emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
E: emboss
Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can
reinclude thes
Le 20 mai 2014 10:27, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org a écrit :
Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
EMBOSS
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can
reinclude thes
Hi Santiago,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:07:17PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
I would reupload it as emboss_6.6.0+dfsg2-1.dsc (dfsg2), using the right
tar.gz (the one in 6.6.0-1). You don't need an epoch for that.
While this could
Andreas Tille writes (Re: FDL with no invariant sections):
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:07:17PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
I would reupload it as emboss_6.6.0+dfsg2-1.dsc (dfsg2), using the right
tar.gz (the one in 6.6.0-1). You
Hi,
Ian Jackson:
Do you consider the lack of the DFSG-free manual an RC bug ?
Given that the manual describes a version from the stone ages,
comparatively speaking, I wouldn't consider this to be an RC bug.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi Ian,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:35:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
While this could be considered in general it is probably not worth the
effort to stress test mirrors and autobuilders with these huge packages
just for the sake of reintroducing a small piece of documentation which
is
Andreas Tille writes (Re: FDL with no invariant sections):
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:35:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[Andreas:]
... reintroducing a small piece of documentation which
is heavily outdated (covering version 2.5 - we are now at 6.6) ...
Do you consider the lack
Hi Bastien,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:33:18AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
Usually releases are on July 15th. I think that we can wait for the next
upload, at that time or earlier, to re-introduce the manual.
Could you retest with Lintian gît. I have fixed it a week ago.
I checked
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can
reinclude thes
13 matches
Mail list logo
