Re: PROPOSAL: debian/control file to include new License: field
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:58:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:48:30AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
> > > assume its correct until someone raises an objections? I'd at least
> > > think you could create a sub-queue in NEW so that already tagged
> > > standard licenses would get processed faster and others would be in a
> > > location to allow for special license processing.
> > Well, de facto a package that only has a soname bump will likely not be
> > license-reexamined.
> > For truly new packages, though, there is no way to get around a thorough
> > examination by someone paying careful attention and the ftpmasters are
> > really doing a good job at this.
> > Unfortunately there are enough maintainers that are sloppy in the
> > fulfillment/ignorant of the requirements of the debian/copyright file
> > to lessen the ftpmasters' burden. dh-make's brokenness doesn't help.
> > In fact, a random new package mentioned on debian-mentors will likely
> > not have a correct copyright file. At the time of writing this, the last
> > open RFS for a new package is stegosnow. It does display this problem.
> > Kind regards
> Hi Thomas,
> as I just wrote to Joerge, I am not refering to the initial upload of a
> brand-new package which warrants such attention, but the upload for bug
> fixes and new upstream. If someone uploads Bash, its a pretty safe bet
> that the license is not going to change but if it did, all that would be
> required is to change this 'tag' and then have an automated check
> compare 'tag' with 'oldtag' and flag this upload as requireing a license
In your example the package doesnt even hit the NEW queue as long as no
binary package name changes.
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/