Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification

2012-12-18 Thread Ximin Luo
Correction: https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649530-infinity0 On 18/12/12 23:53, Ximin Luo wrote: > [deleted incorrect url] > > I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added > extra explanations in the commit messages. > > I'm trying to follow the p

Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification

2012-12-18 Thread Ximin Luo
https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0 I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added extra explanations in the commit messages. I'm trying to follow the principle that the commit messages should already contain enough justification for the

Bug#696259: marked as done (Discourage (preferably forbid) underlinked public shared libraries)

2012-12-18 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:45:24 + with message-id <20121218194524.ga31...@wrar.name> and subject line Re: Bug#696259: Discourage (preferably forbid) underlinked public shared libraries has caused the Debian Bug report #696259, regarding Discourage (preferably forbid) underlinked p

Bug#696259: Discourage (preferably forbid) underlinked public shared libraries

2012-12-18 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:41:54PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > Hereinafter "libraries" means "public shared libraries" per Policy §8 and > only them. > I couldn't find in the Policy anything about underlinked libraries while I > believe that ha

Bug#696259: Discourage (preferably forbid) underlinked public shared libraries

2012-12-18 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Hereinafter "libraries" means "public shared libraries" per Policy §8 and only them. I couldn't find in the Policy anything about underlinked libraries while I believe that having them is wrong and should be considered a bug. I mean libraries that are no

Bug#696185: [copyright-format] Please clarify what to use in License field for licenses not specifically mentioned

2012-12-18 Thread Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > the specificaiton already states: > > If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name, > an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses. > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyrigh

Bug#696185: [copyright-format] Please clarify what to use in License field for licenses not specifically mentioned

2012-12-18 Thread Charles Plessy
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org usertags 696185 normative discussion thanks Hi all, the specificaiton already states: If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name, an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses. http://www.debian.org/doc/p