Santiago Vila <[email protected]> writes: > Sorry, I believed we were out of time for that, but maybe I was wrong. > Do you think this is ok for stretch?
> If yes, I can include the mpl licenses real soon now (I'd like to fix > the bug about motd which was reported just a few days ago). I think it's okay for stretch, although I don't have any strong opinions. There are a bunch of accumulated changes to Policy and I usually feel comfortable uploading Policy during a release freeze since it doesn't really matter what version releases with stable, but I don't think it's harming anything to wait until after the release (just a somewhat theoretical violation of release early, release often). > Ok, this is a deadlock :-) If you read the paragraph in base-files FAQ > regarding how I delegate this to policy, it says that I'm usually > reluctant to add licenses until I see policy changed. *laugh*. Maybe you can interpret that as a commit to the Policy repository that will be included in the next release, as opposed to an actual Policy release? I'm probably being excessively conservative, but I recall a few folks feeling like it was a technical violation of the license to have people upload packages referring to base-files's copy of the license when there was no base-files containing the license, since if one were extremely pedantic about it, it would mean we were distributing copies of that code without an accompanying copy of the license. That's why I've historically waited for the base-files release first. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
