On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:01:19 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> Hi
Hello Michal,
> Dne Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:34:10 +0200
> David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> napsal(a):
>
> > X-Comment: on Debian systems, [..]
> >
> > > For second (pedantic) warning, why did you use X-Comment field?
> >
> > To point to copies of licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses/, without
> > violating the RFC.
> >
> > > Neither DEP-5 nor the wiki page seems to mention this field.
> >
> > DEP-5:
> > [..]
>
> But this does not explain why do you use extra field. All examples
> in DEP-5 have link to license in License field.
In DEP-5 I clearly see:
License
* [..]
* First line: licence name(s) in abbreviated format (see Short names
section). If empty, it is given the default value ‘other’
* Remaining lines: either copy the full text of the license(s), indicate a
link to it (or them), or leave this part empty for using standalone
License section(s) that matches the license short name(s) (see the
Standalone License Section section).
I'm leaving those "remaining lines" empty, in favour of standalone license
section. And there's no example on how to point to files
in /u/s/common-licenses/ in a standalone section.
However, if this is a blocker for sponsoring, I'll happily change my
debian/copyright. :)
It's just a matter of establishing a format, and I'm pretty sure ftpmasters
wouldn't bother whether I add a X-Comment or not ;)
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature