Re: public domain

2005-03-30 Thread Alejandro Exojo
El Miércoles, 30 de Marzo de 2005 09:26, Carlos Parra escribió: Hello, I'd like to package a program that's licensed under public domain. I've been talking with the autor and says that he likes also BSD-style license... The change of license is necesary to get into the main archive, isnt

Re: public domain

2005-03-30 Thread Adrian von Bidder
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 09.26, Carlos Parra wrote: Hello, I'd like to package a program that's licensed under public domain. I've been talking with the autor and says that he likes also BSD-style license... The change of license is necesary to get into the main archive, isnt it?

Re: public domain

2005-03-30 Thread Frank Küster
Carlos Parra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'd like to package a program that's licensed under public domain. I've been talking with the autor and says that he likes also BSD-style license... The change of license is necesary to get into the main archive, isnt it? As far as I know,

Re: public domain

2005-03-30 Thread Carlos Parra
An extract of the files that are interesting in this case: File README.txt: ... ... Disclaimer -- 855resolution is free to use, distribute or modify. But please mention my name and the names of the respective contributors. I tried to make the programs as safe as possible but obviously I

Re: public domain

2005-03-30 Thread Willi Mann
If i'm wrong, please correct me. http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW-summary.html says that Kenshi Muto has already uploaded 855resolution. See also: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300341 Willi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe.

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Gaudenz Steinlin
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish thanks What's this actually supposed to do? I can't find any information about this syntax in the BTS documentation. Do you mean something like (or is this an undocumented feature): clone

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish thanks What's this actually supposed to do? I can't find any information about this syntax in the BTS documentation.

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Frank Küster
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - No need to cc [EMAIL PROTECTED], since typically the mail to the bug number will be processed after control@ stuff gets processed (and so, the message will already go to the correct maintainers). And even if it is not so (the order of

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1413 +0200]: I usually find that it is reversed, and that all the mails in which I reassign a bug to an other package gets to _me_, not the new maintainer. They are sent to both, you, and the other maintainer. -- Please do not send

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Gaudenz Steinlin
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:07:02PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish thanks What's this actually supposed to

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:32:06PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: Nevertheless the correct command probably is reassign bugnumber package1,package2 Or is there another undocumented feature that the control bot can guess the correct bug number from the other recipients of the mail? Oops,

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Frank Küster
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish thanks What's this actually supposed to do? [...] clone xxx -1

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Frank Küster
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1413 +0200]: I usually find that it is reversed, and that all the mails in which I reassign a bug to an other package gets to _me_, not the new maintainer. They are sent to both, you, and the

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1443 +0200]: I usually get two copies: One to the From of my mail (usually [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and one to the maintainer address of the package (often debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org). The latter should not be sent if the bug had been

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: This should be better documented indeed, but most if not all tools Time to file a bug report. What is the package responsible for the BTS documentation on the web? -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread Jamie Jones
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: This should be better documented indeed, but most if not all tools Time to file a bug report. What is the package responsible for the BTS documentation on the web? I

Re: reassigning bugs

2005-03-30 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1547 +0200]: I would assume it is either the www.debian.org pesudo-package or the bugs.debian.org pesudo-package. It's the latter. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL

php4-dbase - ITP or ITA?

2005-03-30 Thread Kim Lundgren
Hello! I'm in need of some advice :). The short story is that I've packaged php4-dbase, and am obviously hoping to get it uploaded. My problem is that the package has been removed, after having been Orphaned for a while. Does that mean I should now file an ITP, or is it still an ITA? // Kim

Re: Complex Depends

2005-03-30 Thread Nicolas Boullis
Hi, On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:21:35PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: An idea I have been harboring for quite some time, and which bears some (though not very much) relevance to this thread, is a reverse dependency. The idea is this: Package wine has wine. Package kde has kde. Package