Re: Why Beryl has just four packages?
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:27, Anibal Avelar wrote:
> Hi. I see you have in queue NEW three packages: beryl-plugins,
> beryl-settings and emerald [1] and not ready (yet) beryl.
Firstly, the beryl packages were REJECTED because of license issues. Upstream
is working with me on resolving the non-free/license issues that remain these
will be fixed for the 0.2.0 stable release of Beryl (coming soon).
> I know beryl has another packages:
>
> beryl-dbus
> beryl-manager
>
> and optionally:
>
> emerald-themes
> aquamarine
> heliodor
emerald-themes is not needed as the themes are available from emerald. Plus we
cannot confirm the licenses of the themes at this time.
Aquamarine is completed again, copyright issues need to be resolved (minor).
Heliodor I won't be including, gtk-window-decorator from compiz is the same
thing and will work with beryl (im not sure of metacity themes as there are
issues with this)
> Do you have plans for the others packages?
>
> Because, I have been waiting from the begining those packages, I built
> my own packages [2] and I uploaded them in my unofficial Debian
> repository:
>
> deb http://fixxxer.cc/debian unstable/
> deb-src http://fixxxer.cc/debian unstable/
>
> I have built five packages: beryl, beryl-manager, beryl-plugins,
> beryl-settings and emerald from the 0.1.4 version. Please, check
> them.
>
> I just proved them under Intel chipsets, and they are working fine (so
> far).
>
> Shawn, I would appreciate if you will let me help you. I'm Debian
> maintainer and I have a great interest in beryl.
You can find the current work on git.debian.org as mentioned, when 0.2 gold
is out we will have all copyright/license issues resolved finally.
One important thing is the that beryl 0.1.4 has icons that are non-free (from
the tango project) and these will be removed in beryl 0.2.0 as upstream has
told me. Otherwise, beryl would have to go into non-free.
> Regards
>
>
> [1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
> [2] http://fixxxer.cc/debian/unstable/
Thanks,
Shawn.
Reply to: