On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:46:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 08:50:52PM +0200, Julien Cristau a écrit : > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 20:45:43 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> > > But policy says that there "should" be such a copyright file. Violating > > > such > > > a clause is at least an important bug. > > It's *at most* an important bug: > I think that the disagreement here stems from that we are talking mostly about > packages that are in the NEW queue and therefore are not in Debian yet. > - Since they are not in Debian yet, they have no entry in the BTS, and > therefore the definition of severity for issues is partly irrelevant, > because: > - the FTP team is free to refuse to review a package that they consider > problematic enough. Here, the problem being when copyright information is > too hard to find for review. These review policies are also applied when packages go through binary NEW. They are thus being applied inconsistently when new binary packages are added, and are otherwise not enforced. This is problematic on several levels. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
