Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Are we discussing one (or more) of those topics here or at d-devel, or
> both?!?
Sorry, I for some reason thought the DEP discussion was moving here and
had it stuck in my head that debian-project was where DEPs are discussed.
I'll discuss this in debian-devel instead.
Hi,
> No one uses our RFC-2822-style thing except us, and no one has tools for it
Well, then they should just apt install them.
I failed to understand SPDX until today (with the exception of the license
specifiers), which is mostly due to the quadrillion different formats SPDX data
can come in
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 9:31 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> No one uses our RFC-2822-style thing except us, and no one has tools
> for it, so people are understandably quite reluctant to adopt it.
I agree with that assessment.
As far as I understand the situation of DEP-5 tooling, I may now have
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 6:55 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Are we dicussing the request to take DEP-17 for a 3rd copyright file
> format, or more generally how to best integrate SPDX in copyright files,
> or something else?
>
> Are we discussing one (or more) of those topics here or at d-devel, or
Quoting Russ Allbery (2022-02-08 18:22:46)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> > Quoting Stephan Lachnit (2022-02-08 16:02:20)
>
> >> I would like to request to take the next available DEP number (17 as of
> >> today). It is about using the SPDX specification as an alternative to
> >> the machine-readab
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Stephan Lachnit (2022-02-08 16:02:20)
>> I would like to request to take the next available DEP number (17 as of
>> today). It is about using the SPDX specification as an alternative to
>> the machine-readable debian/copyright (previously DEP-5). An initial
>>
Stephan Lachnit writes:
> I would like to request to take the next available DEP number (17 as of
> today). It is about using the SPDX specification as an alternative to
> the machine-readable debian/copyright (previously DEP-5). An initial
> discussion was started on debian-devel [1], and since
Quoting Stephan Lachnit (2022-02-08 16:02:20)
> I would like to request to take the next available DEP number (17 as
> of today). It is about using the SPDX specification as an alternative
> to the machine-readable debian/copyright (previously DEP-5). An
> initial discussion was started on debi
I would like to request to take the next available DEP number (17 as
of today). It is about using the SPDX specification as an alternative
to the machine-readable debian/copyright (previously DEP-5). An
initial discussion was started on debian-devel [1], and since there
have been no large objection
9 matches
Mail list logo
