RFS: arc-colors

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFS: arc-colors

Benjamin Drung
Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arc-colors".

* Package name    : arc-colors
  Version         : 1.5-1
  Upstream Author : Victor C. <[hidden email]>
* URL             : http://code.google.com/p/gnome-colors/
* License         : GPL-3
  Section         : gnome

It builds these binary packages:
arc-brave  - blue variation of the Arc-Colors wallpapers and GDM themes
arc-colors - set of wallpapers and GDM themes
arc-human  - orange variation of the Arc-Colors wallpapers and GDM themes
arc-noble  - purple variation of the Arc-Colors wallpapers and GDM themes
arc-wine   - red variation of the Arc-Colors wallpapers and GDM themes
arc-wise   - green variation of the Arc-Colors wallpapers and GDM themes

The package appears to be lintian clean.

The upload would fix these bugs: 526243

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arc-colors
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arc-colors/arc-colors_1.5-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Please CC me and Andrew, if you response to this mail, because we did not subscribe this mailing list.

Kind regards
 Benjamin Drung

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors

Evgeni Golov-2
Hi Benjamin,

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:33:29 +0200 Benjamin Drung wrote:

> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arc-colors".

I'm interested in this package (and gnome-colors and shiki-colors too),
but won't have time to review before sunday/monday, so take this as a
sort of ITS :)

BTW, I wonder whether gnome-colors isn't too generic for a package [that
is not officially from GNOME].

Regards
Evgeni

attachment0 (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Evgeni Golov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:33:29 +0200 Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arc-colors".
>
> I'm interested in this package (and gnome-colors and shiki-colors too),
> but won't have time to review before sunday/monday, so take this as a
> sort of ITS :)

Thanks for the interest! (I am working with Benjamin on these packages.)

>
> BTW, I wonder whether gnome-colors isn't too generic for a package [that
> is not officially from GNOME].
>

We debated what to use as the package names and in the end decided on
staying close to the upstream name for the meta-package while using
the *-icon-theme naming convention on the individual theme binaries.
We felt that it would be confusing to use something different from
upstream for the package pulling in all five themes. GNOME-Colors is
very well known. 161,654 downloads through the GNOME-Look to date. As
to it not being officially from GNOME, there seem to be many packages
in the archive that are named gnome-foo without being officially from
GNOME.

We'd be willing to listen to any advise on the issue though...

Also of note is that upstream has been very helpful and willing to
make changes in order to facilitate distro packaging. They changed the
tarball versioning format to allow us to not have to repackage it,
moved hosting to a more stable location to allow us to have a working
watch file, and began including better COPYING information. All that
said, I'm sure they'd much rather see their name used for the
meta-package than something else.

> Regards
> Evgeni
>

Thanks,

- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
https://edge.launchpad.net/~andrewsomething
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=a.starr.b@...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors

Evgeni Golov-2
Hi Andrew, Benjamin,

On Fri, 1 May 2009 10:56:29 -0400 Andrew wrote:

> > BTW, I wonder whether gnome-colors isn't too generic for a package [that
> > is not officially from GNOME].
> >
>
> We debated what to use as the package names and in the end decided on
> staying close to the upstream name for the meta-package while using
> the *-icon-theme naming convention on the individual theme binaries.
> We felt that it would be confusing to use something different from
> upstream for the package pulling in all five themes. GNOME-Colors is
> very well known. 161,654 downloads through the GNOME-Look to date. As
> to it not being officially from GNOME, there seem to be many packages
> in the archive that are named gnome-foo without being officially from
> GNOME.

No real problem with this, just wondered a bit :)
Now listen what I have found in the three packages:

First of all: they build fine in a clean cowbuilder and in an unclean
sid environment, are lintian clean and seem to work fine (I'm not using
GNOME, so I wasn't able to test the metacity theme, only the Xfwm one).

Second: you use cdbs, which is mainly a blackbox for me. Nothing
against you using it, just don't expect answers on questions about it :)

Now come my remarks.

Package versions/links:
gnome-colors 3.1-1 and not 3.0.5-1
shiki-colors 3.8-1 and not 3.5-1
You usually want to post a follow-up to your initial RFS, so potential
sponsors notice the change.

*/debian/control:
 + Vcs-Bzr should be Vcs-Browser? Vcs-Bzr should be a URL one can
   checked out directly.
 + Some Descriptions start with an "a" -- that shouldn't be there.

*/debian/copyright:
 + You write "Copyright: (C) ...", that's AFAIK legally wrong, you
   either have to write "Copyright" or ©
 + You don't provide a revision of the Wiki page you're refering to,
   and as a wiki might change, I'd add it like this:
   http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=454
 + You co-maintain the packages, but only Andrew has copyright?

shiki-colors-3.8/debian/control:Package: shiki-colors-xfwm-theme
 + I'd add an "Xfce4" somewhere to the description (like Xfwm/Xfce4
   theme based ...) as people tend to search for Xfce and not for Xfwm
   (or at least I do ;))
 + Depends: xfwm4, but shiki-colors-metacity-theme does not depend on
   metacity but gtk2-engines-clearlooks? I have no idea about
   GNOME/Metacity, maybe you just need to explain this one to me :)

gnome-colors-3.1/debian/copyright:
 + You write Copyright (C) 2009, Victor C.<[hidden email]>, but
   AUTHORS says stuff is taken from Tango etc, this should be listed in
   copyright too
 + This maybe apply to the other packages too, but they do not contain
   an AUTHORS file

gnome-colors-3.1/Extras:
 + I wonder about the copyright/source of those?

That's all for now, maybe I find more, but I hope not :)

Regards
Evgeni

--
Bruce Schneier Fact Number 76:
Bruce Schneier PGP signs his grocery lists so that he can detect if
someone has tampered with his milk.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Evgeni Golov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, Benjamin,

[snip]

> First of all: they build fine in a clean cowbuilder and in an unclean
> sid environment, are lintian clean and seem to work fine (I'm not using
> GNOME, so I wasn't able to test the metacity theme, only the Xfwm one

Well, I use GNOME and can attest to the fact that they work there as well. =)

>
> Second: you use cdbs, which is mainly a blackbox for me. Nothing
> against you using it, just don't expect answers on questions about it :)
>
> Now come my remarks.
>
> Package versions/links:
> gnome-colors 3.1-1 and not 3.0.5-1
> shiki-colors 3.8-1 and not 3.5-1
> You usually want to post a follow-up to your initial RFS, so potential
> sponsors notice the change.
>

Sorry, there were new upstream releases since the initial RFS. You're
absolutely right.

> */debian/control:
>  + Vcs-Bzr should be Vcs-Browser? Vcs-Bzr should be a URL one can
>   checked out directly.

If you'd like we could add  Vcs-Browser fields as well, but in fact
the Launchpad/Bzr URLs can be used both in the web browser and
directly from the command-line. Try:

 bzr branch https://code.launchpad.net/~gnome-cors-packagers/arc-colors-pkg/debian/

>  + Some Descriptions start with an "a" -- that shouldn't be there.
>

Thought we caught them all. Fixed in new upload to mentors.

> */debian/copyright:
>  + You write "Copyright: (C) ...", that's AFAIK legally wrong, you
>   either have to write "Copyright" or ©

Fixed in new upload to mentors.

>  + You don't provide a revision of the Wiki page you're refering to,
>   and as a wiki might change, I'd add it like this:
>   http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=454

Heh. That page was changing so much for awhile. I intended simply to
show that it was the general approach we were taking. Fixed in new
upload to mentors.

>  + You co-maintain the packages, but only Andrew has copyright?

I did the initial packaging. Benjamin is added in the new uploads to mentors.

> shiki-colors-3.8/debian/control:Package: shiki-colors-xfwm-theme
>  + I'd add an "Xfce4" somewhere to the description (like Xfwm/Xfce4
>   theme based ...) as people tend to search for Xfce and not for Xfwm
>   (or at least I do ;))

Done.

>  + Depends: xfwm4, but shiki-colors-metacity-theme does not depend on
>   metacity but gtk2-engines-clearlooks? I have no idea about
>   GNOME/Metacity, maybe you just need to explain this one to me :)

Right again, shiki-colors-metacity-theme now depends on metacity in new upload.

Any suggestions about the XFWM theme would be appreciated. Is there a
more minimal package that it could depend on?

> gnome-colors-3.1/debian/copyright:
>  + You write Copyright (C) 2009, Victor C.<[hidden email]>, but
>   AUTHORS says stuff is taken from Tango etc, this should be listed in
>   copyright too

There was an X-Comment field mentioning Tango. I've tried to be much
more verbose in the new upload. Please review.

>  + This maybe apply to the other packages too, but they do not contain
>   an AUTHORS file
>

The other packages are the sole work of Victor C. to the best of my knowledge.

> gnome-colors-3.1/Extras:
>  + I wonder about the copyright/source of those?
>

Upstream has removed that directory from the tarball. I'm not sure of
their reason.

> That's all for now, maybe I find more, but I hope not :)
>

Thanks so much for the review

- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

> Regards
> Evgeni
>
> --
> Bruce Schneier Fact Number 76:
> Bruce Schneier PGP signs his grocery lists so that he can detect if
> someone has tampered with his milk.
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors

Evgeni Golov-2
Hey,

On Tue, 5 May 2009 02:50:56 -0400 Andrew wrote:

> Well, I use GNOME and can attest to the fact that they work there as well. =)

Great, in the end it's your package and you get the angry users if you
make mistakes :)

> > */debian/control:
> >  + Vcs-Bzr should be Vcs-Browser? Vcs-Bzr should be a URL one can
> >   checked out directly.
>
> If you'd like we could add  Vcs-Browser fields as well, but in fact
> the Launchpad/Bzr URLs can be used both in the web browser and
> directly from the command-line.

Ok, I'd prefer to have Vcs-Browser too then, just for the fact that you
get the nice "browse" link in the PTS then :)

> >  + Depends: xfwm4, but shiki-colors-metacity-theme does not depend on
> >   metacity but gtk2-engines-clearlooks? I have no idea about
> >   GNOME/Metacity, maybe you just need to explain this one to me :)
>
> Right again, shiki-colors-metacity-theme now depends on metacity in new upload.
>
> Any suggestions about the XFWM theme would be appreciated. Is there a
> more minimal package that it could depend on?

I guess it's xfwm if any, but will ask in the pkg-xfce team as soon
the guys are awake :)
I wonder if the Depends should be a Recommends instead (also for the
metacity package) -- will also be asked on pkg-xfce.

> There was an X-Comment field mentioning Tango. I've tried to be much
> more verbose in the new upload. Please review.

Will do tonight.

regards

--
Bruce Schneier Fact Number 1130:
Alice and Bob are talking about Bruce Schneier, and he knows it.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Evgeni Golov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> > */debian/control:
>> >  + Vcs-Bzr should be Vcs-Browser? Vcs-Bzr should be a URL one can
>> >   checked out directly.
>>
>> If you'd like we could add  Vcs-Browser fields as well, but in fact
>> the Launchpad/Bzr URLs can be used both in the web browser and
>> directly from the command-line.
>
> Ok, I'd prefer to have Vcs-Browser too then, just for the fact that you
> get the nice "browse" link in the PTS then :)
>

Vcs-Browser fields have been added to all three packages in bzr. I've
not yet pushed new uploads to mentors. I will do so after your further
review.

Thanks again for working on this,

- Andrew


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors

Benjamin Drung
In reply to this post by Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
Am Dienstag, den 05.05.2009, 02:50 -0400 schrieb Andrew:
> > gnome-colors-3.1/Extras:
> >  + I wonder about the copyright/source of those?
> >
>
> Upstream has removed that directory from the tarball. I'm not sure of
> their reason.

The directory was removed and is now distributed as extra tarball. But
we did not package those extra icons (because they overwrite the
existing icons), so it is no loss.

Cheers,
Benjamin

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Benjamin Drung
In reply to this post by Evgeni Golov-2
Hi,

gnome-colors 3.2 and shiki-colors 3.9 were released. I have updated the
packages and uploaded them to mentors.debian.net.

Cheers,
Benjamin

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Evgeni Golov-2
On Wed, 06 May 2009 17:55:22 +0200 Benjamin Drung wrote:

> gnome-colors 3.2 and shiki-colors 3.9 were released. I have updated the
> packages and uploaded them to mentors.debian.net.

Great, next time please send links to .dsc files, it's easier for me
then :)

Now my remarks:

*/debian/copyright:
 + I had expected lintian to barf about the long Format-Specification
   line, but it does not, ok, no change needed. (I used to do a
   line-break after the : in my packages).
 + You have "Copyright: Copyright © 2009, Victor Castillejo" everywhere,
   IMHO not a fault, but using only the © would be sufficient.

*/gnome-colors-3.2/debian/copyright:
 +  Files: Tango based icons
    Copyright: PD
    and
    Files: GNOME based icons
    Copyright: GPL-2
    is wrong:
     you want to name the files
     s/Copyright/License/
     for the GNOME ones you miss the copyright holders
 + I still wonder about
   "All the icons were either created in Inkscape, modified from
    GNOME/Tango sources, or available under a free license." from the
    AUTHORS file, the last part implies there are more derivative works?

arc-colors-1.5/debian/*.xml:
 + Why are these not included into upstreams tarballs? Because they
   have paths in them?

arc-colors-1.5/Sources:
 + Run
   "grep -r home . |sed -e 's,.*/home/,,;s,/.*,,' |sort -u"
   It will tell you, that there are four people who did the stuff?
   But you list only Victor in copyright.

gnome-colors:
 + The same is fun in gnome-colors (when you unpack the tarballs) :(
 + grep -ri licen gnome-*/* |grep -vi "GPL/2.0" |grep -vi "cc:license"
   is interesting too, it lists LGPL and CC-BY-SA-2.0 and 2.5 too.
   And also CC-BY-NC-3.0 too - this is non-free! :(

So besides of the copyright/licensing stuff, the packaging is good and
can be uploaded as soon you fix these :) [I know, collecting copyright
info is painfull, but if we wouldn't do that, we'd still use Windows ;)]

Regards
Evgeni

--
Bruce Schneier Fact Number 26:
Bruce Schneier's secure handshake is so strong, you won't be able to
exchange keys with anyone else for days.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Evgeni Golov-2
On Thu, 7 May 2009 01:41:01 +0200 Evgeni Golov wrote:

>  + grep -ri licen gnome-*/* |grep -vi "GPL/2.0" |grep -vi "cc:license"
>    is interesting too, it lists LGPL and CC-BY-SA-2.0 and 2.5 too.
>    And also CC-BY-NC-3.0 too - this is non-free! :(

Ew, forgot to mention that CC-*-1.x and 2.x are considered non-free
too :(

--
Bruce Schneier Fact Number 669:
There is no protocol to play Mental Poker that prevents Bruce Schneier
keeping aces up his sleeve.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort-2
Evgeni Golov wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009 01:41:01 +0200 Evgeni Golov wrote:
>
>>  + grep -ri licen gnome-*/* |grep -vi "GPL/2.0" |grep -vi "cc:license"
>>    is interesting too, it lists LGPL and CC-BY-SA-2.0 and 2.5 too.
>>    And also CC-BY-NC-3.0 too - this is non-free! :(
>
> Ew, forgot to mention that CC-*-1.x and 2.x are considered non-free
> too :(

Although for 2.x you can distribute derivative works under a later version of
the license (e.g. 3.0), so if we considerate Debian packaging a derivative work,
that would be fine.

I seem to recall there is stuff in the archive that is licensed under CC-BY-SA
2.5, probably due to the above reasoning.

Best,
Emilio


signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
In reply to this post by Evgeni Golov-2
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Evgeni Golov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> */gnome-colors-3.2/debian/copyright:
>  +  Files: Tango based icons
>    Copyright: PD
>    and
>    Files: GNOME based icons
>    Copyright: GPL-2
>    is wrong:
>     you want to name the files
>     s/Copyright/License/
>     for the GNOME ones you miss the copyright holders

Will fix. It's going to take some consultation with upstream though.

>  + I still wonder about
>   "All the icons were either created in Inkscape, modified from
>    GNOME/Tango sources, or available under a free license." from the
>    AUTHORS file, the last part implies there are more derivative works?
>

I'll investigate further with upstream.

> arc-colors-1.5/debian/*.xml:
>  + Why are these not included into upstreams tarballs? Because they
>   have paths in them?
>

The upstream tarball doesn't have any installation system. It is
simply designed to have the backgrounds added manually. The are
registered when you do so. I created these xml files myself as without
them the backgrounds just sit in /usr/share/backgrounds and the user
would have to find and add them on their own. The xml files make them
show up in the gnome-appearance-preferences > backgrounds tab
automatically on installation.

> arc-colors-1.5/Sources:
>  + Run
>   "grep -r home . |sed -e 's,.*/home/,,;s,/.*,,' |sort -u"
>   It will tell you, that there are four people who did the stuff?
>   But you list only Victor in copyright.
>
Again, I'll investigate further with upstream.

> gnome-colors:
>  + The same is fun in gnome-colors (when you unpack the tarballs) :(
>  + grep -ri licen gnome-*/* |grep -vi "GPL/2.0" |grep -vi "cc:license"
>   is interesting too, it lists LGPL and CC-BY-SA-2.0 and 2.5 too.
>   And also CC-BY-NC-3.0 too - this is non-free! :(
>

I think this is an unfortunate by product of the re-licensing of Tango
from a mess of mostly variations of CC licenses to public domain. This
happened after the original creation of gnome-colors, so any svg files
edited from old Tango sources probably retained their old licensing
info in the headers. Again, I'll have to work with upstream on all
this...

> So besides of the copyright/licensing stuff, the packaging is good and
> can be uploaded as soon you fix these :) [I know, collecting copyright
> info is painfull, but if we wouldn't do that, we'd still use Windows ;)]
>

I have a more general question on debian/copyright. Obviously all of
the above needs to be resolved, but upstream has mentioned in the past
that they are simply interested in having a free license and are not
tied to GPL-3. So I wonder if they were to relicense as GPL-2 if
"Files: *" would then be acceptable as their original work and icons
coming from gnome would both be GPL-2 and icons coming from tango are
in the public domain, explicitly giving up copyright and including the
following in the dedication:

 | Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
 | may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
 | built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
 | or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
 | yet been invented or conceived.

Does that imply they can be relicensed?

Thanks so much for the review!

- Andrew


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Evgeni Golov-2
On Wed, 6 May 2009 20:44:49 -0400 Andrew wrote:

> I have a more general question on debian/copyright. Obviously all of
> the above needs to be resolved, but upstream has mentioned in the past
> that they are simply interested in having a free license and are not
> tied to GPL-3. So I wonder if they were to relicense as GPL-2 if
> "Files: *" would then be acceptable as their original work and icons
> coming from gnome would both be GPL-2 and icons coming from tango are
> in the public domain, explicitly giving up copyright and including the
> following in the dedication:
>
>  | Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
>  | may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
>  | built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
>  | or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
>  | yet been invented or conceived.
>
> Does that imply they can be relicensed?

If everything would be in the Public Domain: yes, that would work as
far I can see (I'm not a licensing guru).
But it won't work with GPL-* as this does not drop the copyright, so
you have to mention the copyright holders by name.

--
Bruce Schneier Fact Number 384:
Bruce Schneier once beat an asymmetric cipher into symmetry.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFS: shiki-colors -> shiki-colors-murrine

Benjamin Drung
In reply to this post by Evgeni Golov-2
Hi,

I have replaced shiki-colors by shiki-colors-murrine (which only differs
in using Murrine instead of Clearlooks) and uploaded to
mentors.debian.net:

http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shiki-colors-murrine/shiki-colors-murrine_3.9-1.dsc

Cheers,
Benjamin

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Benjamin Drung
In reply to this post by Evgeni Golov-2
Am Donnerstag, den 07.05.2009, 01:41 +0200 schrieb Evgeni Golov:
> */debian/copyright:
>  + I had expected lintian to barf about the long Format-Specification
>    line, but it does not, ok, no change needed. (I used to do a
>    line-break after the : in my packages).

The example copyright files do not break the line. So I would keep it
like it is.

>  + You have "Copyright: Copyright © 2009, Victor Castillejo" everywhere,
>    IMHO not a fault, but using only the © would be sufficient.

I have changed all packages to "Copyright: Copyright 2009, [...]" and
uploaded the shiki-colors-murrine package again.

shiki-colors-murrine should be ready now.

Cheers,
Benjamin

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors

Benjamin Drung
In reply to this post by Benjamin Drung
Hi,

shiki-colors-murrine 3.9.1 was released. I have updated the
package and uploaded it to mentors.debian.net.

The respective dsc file can be found at:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shiki-colors-murrine/shiki-colors-murrine_3.9.1-1

Cheers,
Benjamin

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors are ready

Benjamin Drung
In reply to this post by Evgeni Golov-2
Hello,

all license issues are resolved now. Some problematic files (e.g.
CC-BY-NC-3.0 licensed) were replaced. Upstream was very helpful with all
these issues.

Here are the links to the .dsc files for the new packages:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arc-colors/arc-colors_1.7.1-1.dsc
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-colors/gnome-colors_3.8.3-1.dsc
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shiki-colors-murrine/shiki-colors-murrine_3.9.1-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Please CC me and Andrew, if you response to this mail, because we did
not subscribe this mailing list.

Kind regards
 Benjamin Drung

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ITS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors are ready

Evgeni Golov
Hi Benjamin,

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:31:38PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:

> all license issues are resolved now. Some problematic files (e.g.
> CC-BY-NC-3.0 licensed) were replaced. Upstream was very helpful with all
> these issues.

Great!

> Here are the links to the .dsc files for the new packages:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arc-colors/arc-colors_1.7.1-1.dsc
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-colors/gnome-colors_3.8.3-1.dsc
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shiki-colors-murrine/shiki-colors-murrine_3.9.1-1.dsc
>
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

I'll have a look at these the next days (prolly not before thuesday
though).
As the old packages were in a very good shape, I'm quite sure I'll be
able to upload this versions after I checked the copyright stuff.
BTW, is there no more shiki-colors package? only -murrine?

Regards
Evgeni

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ITS: arc-colors, gnome-colors, shiki-colors are ready

Dmitrijs Ledkovs
Hi Evgeni (Privet)

2009/5/29 Evgeni Golov <[hidden email]>:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:31:38PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>>
>> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
>
> I'll have a look at these the next days (prolly not before thuesday
> though).

So is that Tuesday or Thursday?????? =DDDDD

> As the old packages were in a very good shape, I'm quite sure I'll be
> able to upload this versions after I checked the copyright stuff.
> BTW, is there no more shiki-colors package? only -murrine?
>
> Regards
> Evgeni



--
With best regards


Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

123