Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Jan 2003 17:22:06 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jan 18 11:22:05 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 213-96-69-115.uc.nombres.ttd.es (natura.oskuro.net)
[213.96.69.115]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18ZwfV-0000xm-00; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:22:05 -0600
Received: from nubol.int.oskuro.net (nubol.int.oskuro.net [192.168.1.3])
by natura.oskuro.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id B221E277FE; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:21:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: by nubol.int.oskuro.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 5B95070A741; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:21:33 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: please include the complete text of the GNU Free Documentation
License
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.10
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:21:33 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.6
Severity: normal
I just wanted to point at /usr/share/common-licenses/FDL in one of my
packages, but surprise, we distribute no such file in base-files.
Is there a good reason not to do it?
Jordi
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux nubol 2.4.20 #1 Fri Jan 3 21:40:25 CET 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US
Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii base-passwd 3.4.5 Debian base system password/group
ii gawk [awk] 1:3.1.1-1 GNU awk, a pattern scanning and pr
ii mawk [awk] 1.3.3-9 a pattern scanning and text proces
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 182916-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Mar 2003 16:41:15 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 21 10:41:14 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com)
[12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18wPZw-0002qG-00; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:41:13 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id
h2LGZmfW027386;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:48 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) id
h2LGZjKD027382;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50.17 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090017 (Oort Gnus v0.17) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Fri Mar 21 10:35:45 2003
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Matthias
Klose's message of "Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:47:01 +0100")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,NOSPAM_INC,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,
SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA,
X_AUTH_WARNING
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
My stance has been that in order to be classified as common,
a license ought to be actually common -- say, a rule of thumb: be at
least used in 5% of the packages.
The rationale behind adding licenses to the common-licenses
category is to prevent excessive duplication of the license text, and
prevent useless waste of disk space; this saving in disk space is
supposed to offset the additional effort to determine what the
license is.
So, if there are at least 5% of the source packages (or
whatever number emrges from the debate that is sure to follow), we
can include the license into common license. A nice, objective
criteria for admission ;-)
manoj
--
I know it's weird, but it does make it easier to write poetry in perl.
:-) Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
