[Redirecting to debian-project, per
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/12/msg00025.html; M-F-T set.]
Hi Charles,
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:56:29AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
By the way, there was an interesting discussion in bugs.debian.org/521810 a
couple of monthes ago, which
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:56:29AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Given that the purpose of DEP-5 is to make information available to machines,
my feeling is also that there is no need for a new field, unless there is a
commitemnt to parse the license information about removed files in a
Le Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:56:29AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
Le Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:26:52AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:56:51PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
I remember that debian/copyright should not only list where the
source was downloaded
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
while checking the section 6.7.8.2 of the Developers reference
(“Repackaged upstream source”) in the context on another thread on this
list
(http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/d921045c2e3ae5ecfba088e9d82eb...@drazzib.com),
I found the following :
Hi Thibaut,
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:56:51PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
I remember that debian/copyright should not only list where the
source was downloaded from, but also the files which were removed by
the packager and the motivation for the removal (DFSG, patents,
large convenience
Le Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:26:52AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:56:51PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
I remember that debian/copyright should not only list where the
source was downloaded from, but also the files which were removed by
the packager and the
Hi,
I remember that debian/copyright should not only list where the source
was downloaded from, but also the files which were removed by the
packager and the motivation for the removal (DFSG, patents, large
convenience copy of a library...). At least, that's how I interpret
this (from
7 matches
Mail list logo
