* Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 12:16]:
> Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Doc packages are usually called package-doc. I see no reason to change
> > that here, except that adding non-free seems to make sense. Removing
> > "lib" would just confuse the name, because it
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> Well, the new package will not contain a Perl module, so I do not see the
> need to sticking to the conventions (cf section 4.2 of the Debian Perl
We know what to guess as its name, that along is good enough reason IMHO.
> At any rate, I guess you
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doc packages are usually called package-doc. I see no reason to change
> that here, except that adding non-free seems to make sense. Removing
> "lib" would just confuse the name, because it would be less clear which
> package the doc is for.
I prefer -tu
* Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 17:56]:
> Doc packages are usually called package-doc. I see no reason to change that
> here, except that adding non-free seems to make sense. Removing "lib" would
> just confuse the name, because it would be less clear which package the doc is
> for.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 05:12:06PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 10:07]:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > > I buy Sven's arguments in favor of adding -nonfree. I would also strip
> > > the
> > > "lib" at t
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 10:07]:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > I buy Sven's arguments in favor of adding -nonfree. I would also strip the
> > "lib" at the beginning of the name. The upstream Perl module is called
> > Parse-RecDescent, s
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I buy Sven's arguments in favor of adding -nonfree. I would also strip the
> "lib" at the beginning of the name. The upstream Perl module is called
> Parse-RecDescent, so I would call the package parse-recdescent-doc-nonfree.
> What do you think?
Oh, we have conflicting views here:
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 14:07]:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:15:59PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > 2) How should the nonfree package be called? The options would be:
> >
> >libparse-recdescent-perl-nonfree
> >libpars
Rafael Laboissiere wrote on 15/09/2005 13:15:
> [Please Cc: replies to me.]
> My package libparse-recdescent-perl contains a tutorial in HTML which is
> non DFSG-compliant and I have to remove it from the main package. The
> tutorial is actually quite helpful and I would like to make a nonfree
> p
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:15:59PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> My package libparse-recdescent-perl contains a tutorial in HTML which is
> non DFSG-compliant and I have to remove it from the main package. The
> tutorial is actually quite helpful and I would like to make a nonfree
> package f
[Please Cc: replies to me.]
Hi,
My package libparse-recdescent-perl contains a tutorial in HTML which is
non DFSG-compliant and I have to remove it from the main package. The
tutorial is actually quite helpful and I would like to make a nonfree
package for it.
My questions are:
1) Do I have to
11 matches
Mail list logo
