On 21/07/12 15:49, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Aside from the question of whether the content can actually have
> authorship asserted over it in the first place, we've historically
> treated licensing issues in stable where the situation has subsequently
> been clarified in unstable as documentation u
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 675167 - moreinfo
Bug #675167 [release.debian.org] RM: figlet -- RoQA; undistributable files
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> retitle 675167 pu: package figlet/2.2.2-1+squeeze1
Bug #675167 [release.debian.org] RM: figlet -- RoQA; undistributable fi
tags 675167 - moreinfo
retitle 675167 pu: package figlet/2.2.2-1+squeeze1
user release.debian@packages.debian.org
usertags 675167 = pu
thanks
On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 02:41 +0100, Jonathan McCrohan wrote:
> On 15/06/12 22:10, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > So for stable, just the license information w
On 15/06/12 22:10, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> So for stable, just the license information would need to get
> updated, AIUI.
Attached is a debdiff with backported versions of fonts/8859-* from
figlet 2.2.5. I proposed something similar on #-release last week too.
While I got replies from the release
* Alexander Reichle-Schmehl [2012-06-04 21:30:28 CEST]:
> Hi!
>
> On 04.06.2012 19:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> >>> There seems to be just about 0 creative content in that file. What
> >>> exactly is the problem with it?
> >> Figlet 2.2.5 has just been released with the following changelog [1]
5 matches
Mail list logo