Hello Jari,
AFAIK is this already done with debtags.
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917
Am 2006-02-21 02:45:12, schrieb Kevin Mark:
Hi,
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)? would it allow for reducing package size by removing
license text from all packages and having them installed in a seperate
essential package stored in a
[Kevin Mark]
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)?
I doubt it. They don't take the maintainer's word for stuff like that,
as I understand it - they double-check the copyright and license
declarations in the source code.
would it allow for
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:35:52AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Kevin Mark]
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)?
I doubt it. They don't take the maintainer's word for stuff like that,
as I understand it - they double-check the copyright
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 03:54 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:35:52AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Kevin Mark]
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)?
I doubt it. They don't take the maintainer's word for stuff like
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:45:12AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:12:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[License field]
In other words, it seems like a lot of work, and it's not clear what
problem it would really solve.
Hi,
would it provide any automation or easier
Note that there was a discussion using debtags for license information
on debtags-devel/debian-legal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00016.html
is a good starting point.
Personally I believe, that if such an information should be available,
debtags is more suitable to express
On 10572 March 1977, Jari Aalto wrote:
To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information
for a package is to actually download it (or install it) and the
study the content of
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright
Yes.
Add new field to the debian/control (which would be
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)?
Nope.
--
bye Joerg
Naturally; worms that don't know what they are doing end up as
fish bait, instead of getting invited into weird math experiments.
--
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
assume its correct until someone raises an objections?
Yes. And the big number of rejects due to incorrect debian/copyright
files (more than for technical reasons) shows that it is
Kevin Mark wrote:
You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
assume its correct until someone raises an objections? I'd at least
think you could create a sub-queue in NEW so that already tagged
standard licenses would get processed faster and others would be in a
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
assume its correct until someone raises an objections?
Yes. And the big number of rejects due to incorrect
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Kevin Mark wrote:
You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
assume its correct until someone raises an objections? I'd at least
think you could create a sub-queue in NEW so that already tagged
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
I understand the general idea of a DFSG-free license but, for example,
if Clint uploads yet another zsh package bugfix, I'm not expecting him to have
it under a different license then the last 99 uploads. And if there was
a license change, you could
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Kevin Mark wrote:
You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
assume its correct until someone raises an objections? I'd at least
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 11:01:07AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
I understand the general idea of a DFSG-free license but, for example,
if Clint uploads yet another zsh package bugfix, I'm not expecting him to
have
it under a different license then
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:27PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi Thomas,
as I just wrote to Joerge, I am not refering to the initial upload of a
brand-new package
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 05:17:56AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:27PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi Thomas,
as I just wrote to Joerge, I
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 02:45 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)?
I'd assume part of the FTP masters checking is actually verifying the
license specified in debian/copyright is the license actually used by
the source, and
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:34:22AM +, Ross Burton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 02:45 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)?
I'd assume part of the FTP masters checking is actually verifying the
license specified in
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
Only packages in NEW are checked, not every little bugfix upload. :)
I probably need one of these two at the moment: 1) sleep 2) caffine so I
mis-stated what NEW entails. It deals with initial uploads and other
situations(at least new upstream and other
To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information
for a package is to actually download it (or install it) and the
study the content of
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright
It would be better if user could use the packaging search commands,
like
grep-dctrl -F License ...
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information for a
package is to actually download it (or install it) and the study the
content of
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright
It would be better if user could use the packaging search
* Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-21 08:01]:
To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information
for a package is to actually download it (or install it) and the
study the content of
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright
That information can also be obtained from
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:12:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information for a
package is to actually download it (or install it) and the study the
content of
25 matches
Mail list logo
