Re: Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5

2014-09-24 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Russ, > The syntax requires some short name. I think it's fine to just use > something arbitrary that passes the syntax check, like "custom-license". > That's what I do. I'll do that, then. Since I have two custom licenses, I guess I should be using custom-license-1 and custom-license-2, which

Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5

2014-09-24 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
(Please keep me CCd, I'm not subscribed) Hi folks, given that DEP5 is now part of debian-policy, I think this is the right place for this dicussion? I use DEP5 here, though it's technically the "Machine-readable debian/copyright file"-specification v1.0, but that's so long to write :-p Looking a

Bug#613046: debian-policy: please update example in 4.9.1 (debian/rules and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)

2012-01-30 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi folks, just stumbled upon this report, and I have a small suggestion to improve Jonathan's patch: > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -2256,18 +2256,13 @@ > massage this example in order to make it work for your > package. > > -CFLAGS = -Wall -g > INSTA