Re: RFS: poco (updated package) [4th try]
2008/1/20, Russ Allbery <email@example.com>:
> I believe that you should either license your packaging work under the
> same license as the upstream source or add an exception to the licensing
> on your packaging work to allow it to be linked with OpenSSL.
I think simple patches are not eligible for copyright, but I understand
your point and changed packaging license to the POCO license.
> I didn't build this package to double-check, but I expect this lintian tag
> is correct as far as it goes and isn't a bug. It looks like you have a
> package named libpoco2 which doesn't contain a shared library named
> It is a place where an override is probably justified, however.
I put updated package to mentors.d.n:
As Aníbal told me that hi is a bit busy, could you upload it?
Krzysztof Burghardt <firstname.lastname@example.org>