Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]
Hi,
Il Sabato 18 Giugno 2016 21:45, Frank Stähr <der-storch-85@gmx.net> ha scritto:
>I think we are nearly ready, don’t give up.
I *never* give up :)
>Nevertheless, I don’t see why e. g. boost/algorithm/string/trim.hpp is
>guaranteed to be installed. It might be a coincidence that it is
>included by regex or program-options. In my case e. g. libboost1.58-dev
>was automatically installed together with regex/program-options.
>(But you do not need to explain. I just wanted to exclude an error.)
you gave me a good answer here, so, please add it again then (libboost-dev is fine
in this case!)
grep boost . -R |grep include
./src/main.cpp:#include <boost/program_options.hpp>
./src/main.cpp:#include <boost/algorithm/string/trim.hpp>
./src/main.cpp:#include <boost/algorithm/string/case_conv.hpp>
./src/main.cpp:#include <boost/algorithm/string/predicate.hpp>
./src/main.cpp:#include <boost/regex.hpp>
seems also available in boost1.60
>There is a good reason, but I see that it is unnecessarily tortuous to
>do so. That’s why everything under GPL-2+ now.
if you provide an explanation I can accept it, this is not about you being wrong
and me being right, it is about discussion and accept a common point of view :)
as I did above, I accepted your explanation and asked to restore your solution
>Really?
><www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright> says,
>common licenses may just be refered.
we are talking about copyright in upstream tarball.
I can understand a symlink in debian/copyright, but shouldn't the upstream tarball
have a LICENSE file explaining the license text?
https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
>Thx for all the work and your patience,
thanks for the followup :)
I guess we are mostly ready now!
G.
Reply to: