Am 2006-02-21 02:45:12, schrieb Kevin Mark:
> Hi,
> would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
> queue(ftpmasters)? would it allow for reducing package size by removing
> license text from all packages and having them installed in a seperate
> essential package stored in a c
Hello Jari,
AFAIK is this already done with "debtags".
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
>> Only packages in NEW are checked, not every little bugfix upload. :)
> I probably need one of these two at the moment: 1) sleep 2) caffine so I
> mis-stated what NEW entails. It deals with initial uploads and other
> situations(at least new upstream and ot
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:34:22AM +, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 02:45 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
> > queue(ftpmasters)?
>
> I'd assume part of the FTP masters checking is actually verifying the
> license speci
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 02:45 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
> queue(ftpmasters)?
I'd assume part of the FTP masters checking is actually verifying the
license specified in debian/copyright is the license actually used by
the source, and
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 05:17:56AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:27PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > > as I just wrote t
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:27PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > as I just wrote to Joerge, I am not refering to the initial upload of a
> > brand-new p
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 11:01:07AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
>
> > I understand the general idea of a DFSG-free license but, for example,
> > if Clint uploads yet another zsh package bugfix, I'm not expecting him to
> > have
> > it under a different lice
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
> > > assume its correct until someone raises an objections? I'd at lea
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
> I understand the general idea of a DFSG-free license but, for example,
> if Clint uploads yet another zsh package bugfix, I'm not expecting him to have
> it under a different license then the last 99 uploads. And if there was
> a license change, you could d
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Kevin Mark wrote:
> > You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
> > assume its correct until someone raises an objections? I'd at least
> > think you could create a sub-queue in NEW so that already tag
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
>
> > You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
> > assume its correct until someone raises an objections?
>
> Yes. And the big number of rejects due to incorrect
Kevin Mark wrote:
> You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
> assume its correct until someone raises an objections? I'd at least
> think you could create a sub-queue in NEW so that already tagged
> standard licenses would get processed faster and others would be in
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
> You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
> assume its correct until someone raises an objections?
Yes. And the big number of rejects due to incorrect debian/copyright
files (more than for technical reasons) shows that it is
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
> would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
> queue(ftpmasters)?
Nope.
--
bye Joerg
Naturally; worms that don't know what they are doing end up as
fish bait, instead of getting invited into weird math experiments.
--
On 10572 March 1977, Jari Aalto wrote:
> To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information
> for a package is to actually download it (or install it) and the
> study the content of
> /usr/share/doc//copyright
Yes.
> Add new field to the debian/control (which would be generat
Note that there was a discussion using debtags for license information
on debtags-devel/debian-legal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00016.html
is a good starting point.
Personally I believe, that if such an information should be available,
debtags is more suitable to express thi
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:45:12AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:12:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[License field]
> > In other words, it seems like a lot of work, and it's not clear what
> > problem it would really solve.
> Hi,
> would it provide any automation or easier p
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 03:54 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:35:52AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Kevin Mark]
> > > would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
> > > queue(ftpmasters)?
> >
> > I doubt it. They don't take the maintainer's word f
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:35:52AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Kevin Mark]
> > would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
> > queue(ftpmasters)?
>
> I doubt it. They don't take the maintainer's word for stuff like that,
> as I understand it - they double-check the co
[Kevin Mark]
> would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
> queue(ftpmasters)?
I doubt it. They don't take the maintainer's word for stuff like that,
as I understand it - they double-check the copyright and license
declarations in the source code.
> would it allow for redu
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:12:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information for a
> > package is to actually download it (or install it) and the study the
> > content of
>
> > /usr/share/doc//c
* Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-21 08:01]:
> To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information
> for a package is to actually download it (or install it) and the
> study the content of
>
> /usr/share/doc//copyright
That information can also be obtained from package
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information for a
> package is to actually download it (or install it) and the study the
> content of
> /usr/share/doc//copyright
> It would be better if user could use the packaging search comman
To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information
for a package is to actually download it (or install it) and the
study the content of
/usr/share/doc//copyright
It would be better if user could use the packaging search commands,
like
grep-dctrl -F License ... --and -F
25 matches
Mail list logo
