On 11133 March 1977, Michael Meskes wrote:
Not rating the act of adding/removing maintainers in an upload, just one
thing:
> But he not just added himself, he also changed some packaging stuff and
> upgraded to a new upstream version. This seems to be done in a hurry as
> he missed some licensing issues. We now have several files in the
> archive with the following license:
> ; Copyright (C) 2006-2007 innotek GmbH
> ; innotek GmbH confidential
> ; All rights reserved
> Uh, ouch, shouldn't be there, right? That's why I CC ftpmasters. Work is
> underway to create a valid 1.5.0 package, but there's a reason why we
> first fixed stuff in the 1.4.0 version. Since this may take another day
> or two, I wonder whether out admins would like to react and remover this
> version asap.
> As both me and also Patrick are in contact with upstream, this is a
> pending issue solved in hopefully short time.
NO. There is absolutely no reason to *knowingly* upload a non-free
tarball, even named ".dfsg". People doing that should immediately
resign.
Especially not after that one package here got some 3 or 4 rejects due
to non-free / license problems.
> Upstream is generally cooperative and understands the problems, hence I
> see this a bit more relaxed (for the next few days only, until it's
> sorted out). However, if ftp-master do disagree, I'll can re-upload
> 1.4.0, superseeding the 1.5.0 upload.
"Yay, Upstream understands the problem, lets upload non-free crap to main" does
not work.
Fix it.
--
bye Joerg
[2.6.15.4 direkt nach 2.6.15.3]
<HE> Linus muss Gentooler hassen.
<formorer> wieso?
<HE> Naja, die dürften ihre optimierten Kernel gerade fertig gebaut
haben und müssen jetzt aus prompter Versionitis auf das
Ausprobieren verzichten und den neuen kompilieren...
Attachment:
pgpTGVk7E99dt.pgp
Description: PGP signature