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

Bug#842278: RFS: mailfilter/0.8.6-1



Hi,

> Reuploaded.

still not perfect, lets see the debdiff
@@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
+mailfilter (0.8.6-1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * New upstream version
+  * Removed 01_remove_workaround_fixed_FTBFS.patch. Upstream reworked
+    Makefile respectively.
+  * Removed 05-occurred-spellfix.patch. Applied from upstream.
+  * debian/control
+    - Corrected upstream homepage url.
+
+ -- Elimar Riesebieter <riesebie@lxtec.de>  Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:55:18 +0200
+
 mailfilter (0.8.4-2) unstable; urgency=medium

   * Make the build reproducible. Thanks to Reiner Herrmann for the patch
@@ -6,6 +17,7 @@

  -- Elimar Riesebieter <riesebie@lxtec.de>  Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:20:28 +0200

+
 mailfilter (0.8.4-1) unstable; urgency=medium

   * New upstream version. Fixes a FTBFS (Closes: 812668)


added a space in the previous changelog entry

diff -Nru mailfilter-0.8.4/debian/patches/series mailfilter-0.8.6/debian/patches/series
--- mailfilter-0.8.4/debian/patches/series      2016-03-28 14:01:06.000000000 +0200
+++ mailfilter-0.8.6/debian/patches/series      2016-10-23 17:01:01.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
-01_remove_workaround_fixed_FTBFS.patch
 02_fix_build_newer_g++.patch
 03_fix_invalid_conversion.patch
 04_mailfilterex.5-spellfix.patch
-05-occurred-spellfix.patch

actually you didn't rm them, just from series file :)
(not a real issue)

>> I'm also worried about such licenses:
>> ./src/rcparser.cc:   the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>
>This file is availabe after build but instructed from
>./src/rcparser.hh
>
>> ./src/rcparser.hh:   the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>> ./src/rfc822parser.cc:   the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>> ./src/rfc822parser.hh:   the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>
>Those 3(4) files are cloned from bison. So they have all the bison
>license. Neither Andreas nor me can change that. But it should be
>confirm to the DFSG...

why can't you just use bison then?
https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies is something that should be kept in mind

and BTW, I don't care about you changing the license (this is unfeasible), but rather
documenting and adding it to debian/copyright.

every copyright in the source tarball has to be listed there, regardless of it being used or not.

G.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: