Julian Gilbey writes:
> Just a straw poll: who sees /etc/motd these days? My system (probably
> in common with many many users) boots into a graphical environment; I
> only see the motd in the case that I ssh into my machine. So I'm
> against removing the 'see /u/s/common-licenses' type wording
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 07:29:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I agree that we should probably add /usr/share/common-licenses to the
> default motd. Currently, we say:
>
> The programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are free
> software; the exact distribution terms for each pr
Hello,
On Sat, Dec 30 2017, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> Here's an example of some ugly get-orig-source:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/steamcmd.git/tree/debian/rules
>
> Mea Culpa :-)
>
>
> The software's version is some timestamp of a file inside a tarball:
> bad; I don't really wan
Hi,
Am 30.12.2017 um 01:24 schrieb Simon McVittie:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 22:24:23 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Am 29.12.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
>>> Using 'Files: *' when different files are under different licenses
>>> sacrifices precision, but it doesn't sacrifice accuracy.
Hi,
Here's an example of some ugly get-orig-source:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/steamcmd.git/tree/debian/rules
Mea Culpa :-)
The software's version is some timestamp of a file inside a tarball: bad;
I don't really want this scheme supported in uscan; better left it here only.
Gr
Hello Stuart,
On Sat, Dec 30 2017, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> I find the proposal that we should use "[GPL-3+]" (#883950) and the
> proposal that a "License-Grant" field be added (#786470) to be largely
> contradictory. I think accepting (or even pursuing) one should mean
> killing the other:
>
> *
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 29 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I agree that we should probably add /usr/share/common-licenses to the
> default motd. Currently, we say:
>
> The programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are free
> software; the exact distribution terms for each program are
>
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 29 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> This is debatable. You might underestimate the challenge involved in
> building some "upstream" tarballs.
Sure, I might be, but I'd really like to see an example of one of these
packages. We can't hold back removing cruft from the Policy merel
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:24:19AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 22:24:23 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> > Am 29.12.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> > I had to split the game into four digestible pieces (which are in total
> > 1.2 GB large). My original idea was to
9 matches
Mail list logo
