On 10487 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote: > I have reworked the whole packaging naming and would like all of you > again for comments: WTH, what a thread. :) And its also *not* a flamewar. Is hell freezing? :) > Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the > bin-to-source mapping. Hey, that looks ways better than the initial upload. Good work. :) And with 5 sources left its also much less then what I suggested. > texlive-binaries-source 96M > texlive-documentation-source 57M > texlive-languages-source 37M > texlive-base-source 78M > texlive-extra-source 172M Drop the -source from the source names i would say. Its clear what is source and what not. :) With those package sizes you should be *damn sure* that the stuff you/your sponsor uploads *really* works and doesnt have any simple errors. I assume you have a good testsuite for it? :) >> allrunes dfsg >> Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there. >As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX >Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files, >you see that it is LPPL. Well, yes. To be honest: I looked for the real license before I wrote this. :) Take this as a pointer to a.) correct the catalog and b.) correct the header of the generated license.txt. And/Or whoever listed "dfsg" as a license in the first place. -- bye Joerg A.D. 1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in what he believes to be India, but which RMS informs him is actually GNU/India.
Attachment:
pgpnWlJCt2E2_.pgp
Description: PGP signature