Olá Scott e a todos. On Tuesday 16 September 2008 11:46:58 Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday 16 September 2008 06:40, Alexander Sack wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 06:15:53AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On Tuesday 16 September 2008 02:59, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > > Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I think the exceptions are few enough that we could probably code > > > > > some package-specific rejection notification and then keep a list on > > > > > the wiki somewhere. Nothing too fancy would be needed. > > > > > > > > FWIW, I think especially when there are a few packages affected by > > > > this, it is quite likely to forget to look at the wiki page at each > > > > 'apt-get source' command. It should therefore be made clear at download > > > > time what restrictions are on a package. > > > > > > > > Isn't that what we have archive section for? apt-source pretty clearly > > > > tells me if I'm downloading something from multiverse or restricted. > > > > > > The problem is these packages are in Main/Universe because they can be > > > modified, but only if they are rebranded, so while they meet Ubuntu > > > licensing policy for Main/Universe, as a practical matter changes are > > > legally problematic. > > > > > > To take the Mozilla example, it's my understanding that we need > > > permission from Mozilla corp before we patch. I'm certainly not situated > > > to get that permission, so I really can't modify it. > > > > > > I would imagine there are other packages in the archive that our ability > > > to make changes to without rebranding is limited. I'd like some kind of > > > reference list available to developers so they can know. > > > > > > I have my own opinions about the entire Firefox question, but that's for > > > a different thread. Like it or not, such licenses are allowed in > > > Main/Universe and so I'm trying to improve how we deal with this reality. > > > > We use "Mozillateam" in the Maintainer field (compared to Core Dev or > > MOTU) - which could be intepreted as "please ping mozillateam before > > uploading". > > > > So maybe we could make a general rule like: If the maintainer field isnt > > core dev or MOTU, please try to get in touch with the maintainer first? > > Which it would certainly be polite to do in any case. That sounds like it > may > be a better way to handle it than a list on the wiki. We'd need some more > generic 'maintainer' to use for non-mozillateam packages with such > restrictions, but I imagine that's solvable.
So the only change we need, is a change in practise not in Policy, that every package that is not on those too teams should be ack before upload! And maybe we need a few more package-oriented teams instead of the generic ones for those packages. -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786 GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
