> >> The Debian packaging is (C) 2007, Steffen Moeller > >> <email@example.com> and -is licensed under the GPL, see > >> `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. +is licensed under the LGPL, see > >> `/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL'. > > > > I always feel a bit guilty when the Debian packaging has a more > > restrictive licence than the packaged program itself... But I will of > > course revert this change if I do not have a formal agreement from you. > > Well, I don't think that the extra restrictions really affect the packaging > stuff so I would consider both lines as equivalent. I tend to agree with Andreas. Consider to add yourself to the (C), Charles. > > I took a different approach for providing the symlinks, using dh_link. > I would always recommend this whenever possible. Hm. Right. > Were there any actual problems that prevented exonerate to go into the > NEW queue - the fixes are reasonable but none of them fix a problem that > would have prevented the former packaging from an upload. The packaging was from my pre-DD times. I had never submitted it. Sounds like a good plan, though. Concerning BioPerl it builds fine and is usable. This perl svn package is not really needed, is it? Many greetings Steffen
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.