On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> More generally, I found out that this is the case for many packages
> (just a random pick: emacs21{-common}, kdebase-bin, scigraphica) have
> the same deficiencies. An example for a "good" package is the xfree
> Packages;
Does this re
Frank Küster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
> while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
> the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
> not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> 1. Shouldn't we add a note to the Policy (or the Developer's Reference)
>that there should be a license statement for the Debian-specific
>parts in debian/copyright? I think we should, and it should be a
>"must" directive p
Hi,
in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don't even have a
proper copyright s
4 matches
Mail list logo
