On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:31AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Requiring any details of precisely which files are affected makes the
whole thing impossible because that requires some form of mass-update
(or at least mass check of individual files) at
Nowhere does it make any mention of source filenames.
Now please drop that shit from your proposal, and maybe we can discuss
it sanely without counting commas.
I am all for making all the fields optional.
This is a major change from Sam‘s original proposal. The reason it has not been
done
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:31AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Requiring any details of precisely which files are affected makes the
whole thing impossible because that requires some form of mass-update
(or at least mass check of individual files) at every upstream release.
Let's just drop the
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Hi,
currently, DEP5 is not, contrary to what the name says, about a
“machine-readable debian/copyright”. It is about providing a much
broader amount of licensing information on our source packages.
The real problem with
Le Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and
only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? I feel sorry
for the giant bikeshedding thread about spaces and commas, but it is not
getting
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:28:50PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
A real-life example from libunistring (which I've filed an ITP for [1]):
The source files that will constitute the resulting library package are
all LGPL-3+'d, but the source tarball also contains a test suite, which
is GPL-3+
6 matches
Mail list logo
