On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:31AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Requiring any details of precisely which files are affected makes the
> > whole thing impossible because that requires some form of mass-update
> > (or at least mass check of individual fil
> Nowhere does it make any mention of source filenames.
>
> Now please drop that shit from your proposal, and maybe we can discuss
> it sanely without counting commas.
I am all for making all the fields optional.
This is a major change from Sam‘s original proposal. The reason it has not been
don
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:28:50PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> A real-life example from libunistring (which I've filed an ITP for [1]):
> The source files that will constitute the resulting library package are
> all LGPL-3+'d, but the source tarball also contains a test suite, which
> is GPL-3
Le Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
>
> So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and
> only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? I feel sorry
> for the giant bikeshedding thread about spaces and commas, but it is not
> getti
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, DEP5 is not, contrary to what the name says, about a
> “machine-readable debian/copyright”. It is about providing a much
> broader amount of licensing information on our source packages.
>
> The real problem wi
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:31AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Requiring any details of precisely which files are affected makes the
> whole thing impossible because that requires some form of mass-update
> (or at least mass check of individual files) at every upstream release.
> Let's just drop
6 matches
Mail list logo
