[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PROPOSAL: debian/control file to include new License: field

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 05:17:56AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:27PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
> > 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:
> > > 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.
> Hi Michael,
> as I just emailed, my brain is addled at the moment so I did not
> represent an accurate senario involving NEW. There are 2 cases: a
> brand new packages and any subsequent upload to NEW. I expect the brand
> new package to get a through inspection, but once it would be 'tag'ed,
> it should not need a re-examination until the 'tag' value was different
> from previous uploads to NEW.

Sorry, but please examine how NEW work. Really NEW packages are
carefully examined by ftp-master. When a binary package name changes
uploads go to NEW queue mainly because the list of allowed packages need
to be edited by ftp-master. This doesnt mean the package gets fully
scanned by ftp-master again. He/she can of course but that is afaik not
what ftp-master does all the time.

Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/

Reply to: