Re: should qtorrent be removed from the archive?

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote: On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:58:22PM +0100, Cristian Greco wrote: Hi all, I've just filed a RC bug[0] (non-dfsg free source code) against qtorrent. Package is dead upstream, orphaned May 2006 and it could be obsoleted

should qtorrent be removed from the archive?

Thanks, -- Cristian Greco GPG key ID: 0x0C095825 signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#513887: qtorrent: contains non-dfsg free source code

Package: qtorrent Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 Hi, the qtorrent/2.9.1 package currently includes some files from the official 'BitTorrent' client which are licensed under the BitTorrent Open Source License version 1.0 (BTOSL 1.0). This license is likely to be considered

Bug#499546: PTS: shouldn't suggest packaging new upstream release when it is waiting in NEW

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 05:46:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:39:16AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: An example of where it does is batik: http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/batik.html http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/batik_1.7-1.html Examples reported like that

Bug#495227: PTS: please adjust BTS acronym

Package: qa.debian.org Severity: minor Hi, please adjust Debian BTS acronym on PTS page footer. There are too many spaces between 'Bug' and 'Tracking' words, in fact this is how it is actually displayed: acronym title=Bug Tracking SystemBTS/acronym/a. I guess this