Re: backporting GPLv3 packages
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: backporting GPLv3 packages
- From: Robert Millan <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:14:55 +0200
- Message-id: <20070907191455.GA26776@thorin>
- In-reply-to: <20070906075258.GA20229@thorin>
- References: <20070906075258.GA20229@thorin>
Oh, there's another problem I didn't spot. When 4.0.1 is changed to
4.0.1~bpo.1, it stops matching >= 4.0.1 dependencies. Should we make an
exception for base-files, or fix all packages that depend on it when backporting
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:52:58AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Please note that there are a couple of important things that should be taken
> into consideration when backporting GPLv3 packages. Because GPLv3 was only
> added to /usr/share/common-licenses atfer etch (in base-files 4.0.1), packages
> that follow the usual convention of referring to common-licenses will suddenly
> be found with either:
> - a link to an incorrect license (if they refer to .../GPL for gplv3-or-later)
> - a broken link (if they refer to .../GPL-3 for gplv3-only)
> Of course, if this is properly handled in the package, you should expect a
> versioned dependency on "base-files (>= 4.0.1)". But I wouldn't take this for
> I would recommend that some reminder note is added to the upload guidelines in:
> Ah, btw, a base-files 4.0.1 backport has just been uploaded and it is pending
> Robert Millan
> <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
> <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
> (as seen on /.)
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)