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[1]
> > to lessen the ftpmasters' burden. dh-make's brokenness[2] 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[3]. 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
> re-cert.
In your example the package doesnt even hit the NEW queue as long as no
binary package name changes.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
Reply to: