[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: transmission



On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:21:18 +0100
James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net> wrote:

> On (14/09/06 11:51), Philipp Benner wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:45:59 +0100
> > James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net> wrote:
> > > I wouldn't say that noone is responding. It is a little slow, but it
> > > seems like there is work being done. 
> > > 
> > > Have you contacted the people in the report? If you wish to take over
> > > you should really contact them and then either with their permission, or
> > > after some time with no response, take over the ITP.
> > 
> > I tried to contact Leo Antunes because he seems to be responsible for
> > uploading the package but didn't get a response. Although no one
> > responds to the question of Joshua Kwan which he posted a month ago.
> > 
> 
> Well there's no record of your contact in that bug report. It's a good
> idea to Cc: the bug report when you ping a maintainer so it is clear to
> others what is happening.
> 
> I would suggest you email both of the people involved and Cc: the bug
> report, stating that you have packages ready and would like to upload.
> Also state that if you do not hear anything in 1/2 weeks you will
> upload. If you are happy for co-maintenance then say that as well. Be
> aware that the two people are DD's, and so if you approach them right
> they might just agree to co-maintenance and upload for you. 

Thanks for your help. I sent a message to the bug report.

> 
> I would suggest having clean packages to do this though. Ask here for a
> package check if you want before you do it. 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think that the mentioned license problems are relevant. This
> > > > package includes some source files with different licenses but all are
> > > > free. (See the copyright file for details)
> > > 
> > > If the information there is accurate then it looks OK to me, but I am 
> > > definately not an expert.
> > > 
> > > However I can't see a license for the Sparkle stuff for instance.
> > 
> > You are right, but since this Sparkle stuff is not interesting for debian
> > I just deleted it in the source package.
> 
> Did you do all the things necessary for repackaging an upstream tarball?

Thanks for the hint, I created a get-orig-source rule which handles the repackaging
and explained what I modified in debian/README.Debian-source.

> 
> > 
> > > You also assert copyright of the Debian packaging, does this mean it is
> > > not based on the other packages of the software?
> > 
> > I repackaged transmission since the other packages are not up to date and
> > had some errors.
> 
> That's fine then.
> 
> James
> 
> -- 
>   James Westby   --    GPG Key ID: B577FE13    --     http://jameswestby.net/
>   seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!>|&7U.L#9E)Tu)T0>AM - secp256r1/nistp256
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
pub 1024D/EB88E930 2004-02-08 pgp.mit.edu
C1A8 2BE8 7587 215D 91EB  B015 A95C 3BEC EB88 E930

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: