On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:38:57 +0200 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: > On Tue Jul 16, 2024 at 12:10 AM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote: > [..] > > > If this is an actual concern (on a second thought, I personally think > > it could be!), some more explicit warning could be added to the > [..] > > Perhaps the background section should be clearer on this. > > And a FAQ could be added. > > I've added a note in the background, a comment in the MPL-2 entry, and an > additional FAQ entry.
OK, that looks better. I hope this is enough to clarify that manual license compatibility checks should not stop, just because one can run 'adequate'... > > > Personally, I cannot see anything else that needs to be fixed > > in the [current] version of the technical note. I think it is > > 'adequately' fit for its purpose... ;-) > > thanks, changed your review status to approved. Just one nitpick about the metadata: reviewer: invernom...@paranoici.org review-status: approved on-behalf-of: debian-legal@ I think that writing "on-behalf-of: debian-legal@" could give the wrong impression that I have been officially appointed as a spokesperson of the debian-legal mailing list. I am not a spokesperson. I am just one debian-legal participant, with my own opinions and standpoint (which sometimes are similar to those of some other debian-legal participants, sometimes are not!). Please fix this line. Thanks. > > > I hope that the technical note, once finalized, gets included in > > package 'adequate', under the same license as the rest of package > > (Expat). > > I haven't thought about licensing (the irony!). Expat sgtm. Good, thanks for agreeing on the licensing for the technical note. > > > Also, do you plan to automatically extract the incompatibility matrix > > from the technical note itself? That would prevent the matrix (as used > > by the "adequate" command) from ever becoming inconsistent with the > > documented matrix (as found in the technical note)... > > I guess I could move it to the main branch, although I'm not sure that I'd > bother with technically enforcing the consistency. the nice thing of having it > in a separate branch is that one can subscribe to the branch RSS feed from > salsa > without having to be notified about changes in the adequate code. I am convinced that the technical note really belongs to package 'adequate', so I would strongly encourage you to move the document inside the package (probably to be installed under /usr/share/doc/adequate/ ). Extracting the matrix from the technical note at package build time (in some sort of literate programming fashion) would ensure that one does not forget to modify the documentation, when the matrix has to be modified, or the other way round. But I think I had already clarified the rationale behind my suggestion. I acknowledge that it could be a bit tricky, but it would be nice to have... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpZHJvAuoaCD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
