Hi! On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:16:14AM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for this update of "btrfs-progs".
Have you coordinated with Dimitri? When the regular maintainer is active, NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work. Ie, instead of random sponsors, I'd suggest letting him do uploads. As you've helped with this package before, perhaps it might be good to consider co-maintenance? > * Fix serious errors in debian/copyright. This is not a GPL2+ package. > Cme was used to generate a machine-readable copyright file, then I'm afraid the new debian/copyright is a good deal _worse_ than before. For example, you claim there's a file under GPL3, which would make the package undistributable. That file's license would be GPL3+ (not =3), still bad, if not for an exception "... you may include it under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program". Ie, GPL2. Except for some specific projects with tightly controlled copyright notices, Cme produces output indistinguishable from noise. And knowingly providing obviously incorrect copyright data is bad. This Cme-produced output claims every file has a single copyright holder who last touched the file years ago -- easily disproven by "git log" on any file I looked at. And btrfs-progs is a massively cooperative project, with a core gang each of whom holds copyright to most of files (or rather, their companies do -- but those change) and a gaggle of minor contributors (including you and me). Thus, I see two alternatives: * you do a massive work of archeology on every file to find the set of copyright holders. Every file will have a long list. * a blanket statement, listing maybe some major holders but with a stress on "and others". I'd say the important points to convey are "1. many contributors, 2. GPL2". Meow! -- An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
