| Summary: | NEW EBUILD: app-office/sixpack.ebuild | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Ingo Bormuth <ibormuth> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | TeX project <tex> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | Keywords: | EBUILD |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| URL: | http://sourceforge.net/projects/sixpack/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
app-office/sixpack-0.98.ebuild
dev-perl/bp-0.2.98.ebuild |
||
|
Description
Ingo Bormuth
2004-07-26 09:38:17 UTC
Created attachment 36201 [details]
app-office/sixpack-0.98.ebuild
Created attachment 36202 [details]
dev-perl/bp-0.2.98.ebuild
Sorry for the delay. I'll look into it this weekend. First of all, please make sure LICENSE is correct. "GPL" is not valid. LICENSE must match one in /usr/portage/licenses. dev-perl/bp doesn't even have correct LICENSE file, but "as-is" seems okay here. Second, if you are downloading something from sourceforge, please use SRC_URI="mirror://sourceforge/sixpack/..." instead of picking up specific sf mirror. Have a look at /usr/portage/profiles/thirdpartimirrors for complete list of available mirrors defined by Portage. Lastly, http://sourceforge.net/projects/sixpack/ seems to have perl-bp-0.7 and sixpack-2.1, so what's the correct versioning? If they currently maintain the programme, I think using their version number is better than employing the original one. I think this bug should be closed WONTFIX because the project is dead (I have looked at the CVS and the the last change was 3 years ago). Mathias you're right. Years ago I moved to pybliographer.org today I use zotero.org. Finally closing this bug as WONTFIX. |
