On 2015-05-27 08:09, tony mancill wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:54:17 +0200 Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On 2015-05-26 17:25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>>
I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
recommendation is to declare t
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
> Doesn't appear to be a clear statement to me. I would expect something
> like ... and may be *modified*, copied ... in the other part.
Umpf, is this something we have to bring to debian-legal?
IANAL, but I see *several* open source projects includi
On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:54:17 +0200 Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-05-26 17:25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
> >> recommendation is to declare that:
> >>
> >> * gcj-jdk is not considered
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 14:15 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Can you quote the part of the license that allows changes?
>
> Altered versions of this profile shall have the original
> identification and copyright information removed and shall
>
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
> Can you quote the part of the license that allows changes?
Altered versions of this profile shall have the original
identification and copyright information removed and shall
not be misrepresented as the original profile.
Doesn't tha
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 13:43 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Changes *are* allowed.
Can you quote the part of the license that allows changes?
I must be going blind because I cannot see it.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
> > "This profile is made available by the International Color
> Consortium, and may be copied, distributed, embedded, made, used, and
> sold without restriction. Altered versions of this profile shall have
> the original identification and copyright
On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:18:38 +0900 wrote:
> "This profile is made available by the International Color
Consortium, and may be copied, distributed, embedded, made, used, and
sold without restriction. Altered versions of this profile shall have
the original identification and copyright information
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.31
Severity: important
Dear all,
while building TeX Live package I got warned by lintian that the
ICC profile
sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_black_scaled.icc
is unfree, and lintian helpfully related me to the package
icc-profiles
(in Debugs-CC header).
Now check
On 2015-05-26 17:25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
>> recommendation is to declare that:
>>
>> * gcj-jdk is not considered a suitable Java implementation for our end
>>users nor for impleme
Le 26/05/2015 16:52, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
> I think we should decide what our Java baseline is and how it affects
> release archs_before_ changing this.
The best we can do I think is to identify the applications that should
work with GCJ (Ant and LibreOffice for example) and ensure their
depe
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
> recommendation is to declare that:
>
> * gcj-jdk is not considered a suitable Java implementation for our end
>users nor for implementing the default-java.
Please do not do that. Way
On 2015-05-26 16:52, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
>> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
>> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Jav
On 2015-05-26 16:35, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
>> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
>> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
>> in Jessie and it is
On 2015-05-26 16:35, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
>> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
>> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
>> in Jessie and it is
Hi,
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
> in Jessie and it is reasonabl
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
> in Jessie and it is reasonable to update the check now.
>
> It seems t
Le 26/05/2015 15:58, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> I assume all members of the team agree with this change.
Yes that makes sense.
Emmanuel Bourg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
A
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.31
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hello,
I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
"incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
in Jessie and it is reasonable to up
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.31
Severity: normal
The machine-readable copyright format recognizes (only) "public-domain"
(dash-separated) as short name for PD packages, not "public domain"
(space separated). However, when specifying
Copyright: Not applicable
License: public-domain
lintian compl
20 matches
Mail list logo
