On Friday 07 September 2007 08:10:47 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:11:24AM +0200, Edward Welbourne wrote: > > Lionel Mamane: [...] > This was written under the assumption that you statically-linked to > LGPL libraries, not only Qt. As you now inform me this is not the > case, my statement has no base anymore. Can we still hope that there are requests from the Opera developers that a certain set of LGPL libraries are out there that should be distributed with Debian (which they are currently not or in a "wrong" version or missing patches) that would help to further reduce the footprint of the non-inspectable closed-source bits of the Opera Debian package? Or are there free tools you are developing with that should be part of Debian? If so, then it would seem approrpiate to learn about these as "requests for packaging" (RFPs) to the Debian bug tracking system. If Operaners felt like developing Debian packages for those missing pieces themselves, then an "Interest to Pack" (ITP) report should be submitted. The "reportbug" tool in Debian knows this all, just say "reportbug wnpp". New missing Debian packages for Opera would also seem like a brilliant opportunity for paid (!) Opera developers to also develop into Debian developers (http://nm.debian.org). Cheers, Steffen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.