Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)
On Feb 5, 2008 7:21 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <thep@linux.thai.net> wrote:
> If it's to be changed, I'd rather bump the versions in the
> symbols file to 0.1.7 and ignore etch completely. Would
> there be any drawback in doing so?
Sounds fine given the private symbols stuff.
> For the standard "This program is free software..." text,
> I think it's equally right to either add or to not add them.
>
> To be sure, I can add them as you suggest anyway.
Reading the proposal, it looks clear that they should not be added,
sorry about that.
> > I think there are supposed to be commas between the authors and each
> > author should have their own copyright years?
>
> I think we need to clarify what "each copyright holder" in
> the proposal means:
>
> "Suggested format: free content, one line per copyright holder"
...
> Isn't that right?
I'm sorry that I did not see this, that is fine.
> I find this guideline for library description good, although
> I don't see an example of such package yet.
warzone2100/warzone2100-data is one example of such a pair of descriptions.
So, I'll upload once you remove the licence blurb I wrongly asked you to add.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: