Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-12 Thread Fernando Toledo
El 10/05/16 a las 17:22, Gianfranco Costamagna escribió: > > can you please fix the copyright? > (I can also look at a "lintian-problematic" file and tell you what is wrong > in that case, > otherwise my answer is too generic I admit) > > thanks! > > Gianfranco > fixed, uploaded again and

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-10 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
Hi, >https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/aseqjoy/aseqjoy_0.0.2-1.dsc >I just upload to mentors. wonderful! >If use Files: * (for the upstream) and Files: debian/* (for mantainer) >and both have same license this raise the lintian warning. You shouldn't have any issue by doing

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-10 Thread Fernando Toledo
El 09/05/16 a las 12:10, Gianfranco Costamagna escribió: > yes, thanks Alexander for your effort, I personally don't like restricting > licenses, > specially when they are just an honest upstream mistake! > > Gianfranco > > Hello all!

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-09 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
yes, thanks Alexander for your effort, I personally don't like restricting licenses, specially when they are just an honest upstream mistake! Gianfranco Il Lunedì 9 Maggio 2016 16:59, Fernando Toledo ha scritto: El 07/05/16 a las 08:31, Alexander Koenig escribió:

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-09 Thread Fernando Toledo
El 07/05/16 a las 08:31, Alexander Koenig escribió: > On Fri, May 06, 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > <..> >> I would appreciate however a new tarball, because I don't like having to >> tell ftpmasters >> where to look in the mail list for the license change. > > OK, to settle this I

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-07 Thread Alexander Koenig
On Fri, May 06, 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: <..> > I would appreciate however a new tarball, because I don't like having to tell > ftpmasters > where to look in the mail list for the license change. OK, to settle this I created a new aseqjoy release, that should remove all license

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-06 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
Hi Adam, >What's the problem? none, you are right! I read again your previous mail, and yes, there is no conflict assuming we use GPL2 only. I would appreciate however a new tarball, because I don't like having to tell ftpmasters where to look in the mail list for the license change.

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-06 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:55:47AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > unfortunately I'm not sure this is enough for ftpmasters... > > I'm afraid we need an official tarball with the fixed licenses, otherwise > they won't be coherent license-wise. > > this seems to be a blocker for now.

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-06 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
Hi Alexander, unfortunately I'm not sure this is enough for ftpmasters... I'm afraid we need an official tarball with the fixed licenses, otherwise they won't be coherent license-wise. this seems to be a blocker for now. g. Il Lunedì 2 Maggio 2016 21:27, Alexander Koenig

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-05-02 Thread Alexander Koenig
Hi there, the release is pretty dated; for sure I had no intentions to limit aseqjoy to strict GPL-V2 so you can consider aseqjoy-0.0.1 to be GPL-V2+. This applies to all copyrightable files, including the man page. Thanks, Alex

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-04-29 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 09:31:50PM -0300, Fernando Toledo wrote: > El 29/04/16 a las 18:31, Adam Borowski escribió: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:45:27PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >> licensecheck * > >> shows the license of some files as GPL-2+ not GPL-2 > > > > It looks like there's

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-04-29 Thread Fernando Toledo
El 29/04/16 a las 18:31, Adam Borowski escribió: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:45:27PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>> Fixed. Is possible to have upstream => gpl2 and debian/* => gpl3, true? >> >> this means that it will be impossible to forward patches upstream without >> manually >>

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-04-29 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:45:27PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >Fixed. Is possible to have upstream => gpl2 and debian/* => gpl3, true? > > this means that it will be impossible to forward patches upstream without > manually > relicensing them. > > I personally don't prefer, because

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-04-29 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
Hi, sorry for the lag >Fixed. Is possible to have upstream => gpl2 and debian/* => gpl3, true? this means that it will be impossible to forward patches upstream without manually relicensing them. I personally don't prefer, because only the author of each patch will be able to forward it

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-04-15 Thread Fernando Toledo
El 06/04/16 a las 05:24, Gianfranco Costamagna escribió: > control: owner -1 ! > control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Hi, lets review: > > check-all-the-things review: > Please add some upstream metadata: https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata > > Added! (i'm not sure if need i to add more fields.)

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-04-06 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, lets review: check-all-the-things review: Please add some upstream metadata: https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata debian/copyright: please use the same upstream license, and for Debian packaging LGPL-2.1 seems unfeasible anyway (I think

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

2016-03-06 Thread Fernando Toledo
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "aseqjoy" * Package name: aseqjoy Version : 0.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Alexander Koenig * URL : https://terminatorx.org/addons * License