Am 08.12.2017 um 05:18 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes: > >> So I think we should specifically ask the position of people who have >> expertise maintaining machines with very small disk space: How to judge >> which files should be unilaterally installed in that directory, in the >> hope of saving not only the efforts of package maintainers, but also the >> storage requirements on storage-constrained systems. > > +1. I'd love some guidance on this. I'm not convinced that our current > Policy approach is best here. Users who are facing this kind of limitations will most likely remove /usr/share/common-licenses, /usr/share/doc and /usr/share/man and maybe more already. I don't think that it makes any difference to them if we install 5 or 50 text files into /usr/share/common-licenses and the benefit for package maintainers is far greater. > Although I'm not convinced that we want to put *every* DFSG-free license > there, since there are a lot of licenses only used by single packages, and > I'm not sure it's a good idea to have 80 copies of the Expat license with > all of its wording variants. I believe most people would be happy if we included this version. [1] > Please note that I'm pretty sure I can speak for the Policy maintainers as > a group in saying that no way are we taking on the responsibility for > determining what licenses are DFSG-free or not, so we'll need some source > of information for what licenses are eligible for inclusion from someone > else (probably ftpmaster, maybe via NEW processing). Someone set up a wiki page: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses We could just build upon this content and complete the work by linking to accepted packages in main that are using those DFSG licenses. Shall I file another bug report against the Debian Policy or can we reuse one of the existing bug reports for this matter? Regards, Markus [1] https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature