Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 18:42, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>
>> >> No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
>> >> contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in the
>> >> (C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists them
>> >> either in a file header or the AUTHORS file the Debian maintainer has to
>> >> copy that information into debian/copyright.
>> > This is an absolute waste of time.
>>
>> As your mail is.
>>
>> Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
>> maintain a package. It is not much work to list them. (It might be a lot
>> of work using the "new" format, but noone *requires* this format, especially
>> not ftpmaster. It has *no* gain for us at all, we couldnt care less if
>> you use it or not).
>
> You win.
>
> I hereby orphan xulrunner and iceape. As for iceweasel and webkit, there
> is a comaintainer on both, so that's up to them.
Sadly, we are all losing here.
You're a fscking great maintainer, as I was able to experiment with
our interaction on some bugs, and it's a loss for the WHOLE Debian
you're demotivated to maintain those important packages.
Hope in some days/weeks, when the situation will cool a bit, you might
reconsider your decision.
Cheers,
Sandro
/me still has to understand what's the point in shooting on
ourselves... we are losing! every time a maintainer (being a DD or
not) reaches his limit of patience for the sake of nothing.
- --
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.4)
iEYEARECAAYFAknFK8YACgkQAukwV0RN2VD08wCdHNbguc2DdBEPp3RWRomtSOYz
Wf0AnRfRskMVq2cwe4TWDL0PdLJr3z04
=2hwQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: