On 16 August 2016 at 14:32, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
>> Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-08-15 23:02:06)
>> > So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we continue
>> > to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to do so?
>>
>> Same reason that we should continue to care about ability to install
>> multiple major versions of a library concurrently, and that daemons are
>> not only linked correctly but also sensibly configured and started by
>> default.
>>
>> Not because we are legally bound to do so, but because we want to do our
>> job as distributors properly. We appreciate good quality packaging!
>
> Does that justify REJECTing a package which is imperfect in this
> respect, though ?
I wish it wouldn't. I'm struggling packaging GPLv3 software for which I
am also an upstream, Kallithea, as it depends on a bunch of free
software JavaScript libraries. However, using them in a Proper Way is
such amount of work none of my comaintainers nor I have managed to
complete in two years. I attempted to upload what I have during DebConf,
and (obviously) my upload was REJECTed.
Le sigh.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature