Looks good.
Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:18:42 PM EDT Guillem Jover wrote:
> > +#. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright
> > + information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions;
>
> I'm assuming the entire list is supposed to hold at the same time? If
> so perhaps a
On Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:36:57 -0700 Sean Whitton
wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> On Thu 26 Mar 2020 at 03:01PM -04, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:31:31 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> 4. License requires copyright notice but doesn't sp
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:31:31 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 4. License requires copyright notice but doesn't specify anything about
> source or binary (didn't look for an example, but I can totally see this
> happening): I think this case is unclear with your revised w
mmary of what the FTP Team require when
>it
>comes to copyright information, and as another FTP Team member, I
>concur
>with his assessment of the consensus within the team:
>
>On Thu 26 Mar 2020 at 10:32AM -04, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> I think you assume we're looki
On Friday, February 15, 2019 08:59:41 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
> require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion.
>
> There ar
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 08:47:52 -0800 Paul Hardy wrote:
> Unicode's new version for 2019 is attached, with data files in
> http://www.unicode.org/ivd/data/ explicitly mentioned as covered under
> the license. The source text is at
> http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html.
According to my wrangling o
On October 31, 2018 2:44:46 AM UTC, Sean Whitton
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Tue 30 Oct 2018 at 09:34PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> Somewhat recently there has been significant discussion within the
>project
>> regarding the necessity of documenting copyrig
Package: debian-policy
Severity: important
There are no pargraph numbers in policy.txt either on the web site and in the
package. This is a major issue for the text version of the policy since we
use the paragraph numbers to reference specific parts of the policy in many
places in the project. I
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 09:29:27 PM Markus Koschany wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for reporting. I also intended to make such a proposal and I had
> briefly mentioned it in bug #883966. [1]
>
> The reason why the short form is allowed is because of Debian Policy 12.5
>
> "Packages distributed un
On January 8, 2016 12:26:24 PM EST, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Scott Kitterman writes:
>
>> As is currently being discussed on #debian-devel, the git:// protocol
>is
>> insecure, but is what is normally used in Vcs-git fields in Debian
>packages.
>
>> For git, it
Package: debian-policy
Severity: important
Tags: patch
As is currently being discussed on #debian-devel, the git:// protocol is
insecure, but is what is normally used in Vcs-git fields in Debian packages.
For git, it would be far better to used https://, but I don't think policy is
completely cle
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 06:41:10PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> (Cc to the relevant bug added.)
>>
>> On ma, 2011-04-11 at 14:05 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: System users: removing them"):
>> > > Thus, I propose to change 9.2.2 "UID and GID classes", the paragraph
Now the that policy shipped in python-defaults has been updated (including a
review of Manoj's document, it should be at least clear which reference should
be used. We will need some time before we should consider it fully blessed,
so this is progress on this bug, but doesn't resolve it.
sign
14 matches
Mail list logo
