Hi Adam, On 8 July 2016 at 08:58, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote: > Might be RC but certainly isn't urgent. I don't see Nicholas pointing any > of the upstream changes as immediately important (and I _do_ read > linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org); debian/copyright changes are hardly ever > time-sentitive too. For 4.5.3, the only potentially urgent fix was for sparc, which is no longer a 1st tier support arch. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg54831.html I believe the following two fixes in 4.5.3 are probably normal priority, and are definitely a positive and desirable direction. Does reducing the probability of a corner case causing a problem count as important?: https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/commit/df2236d73bdffd69cf6d9aac7d80c880b4413aaa https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/commit/9988284574c1692e5181ecd6f8b9e2512b0503ae > Especially that the proposed new contents of debian/copyright is, IMHO, > containing far more inaccuracies than the old one did. I consulted the xfsprogs and linux-src debian/copyrights. Other than the git repo already mentioned in the file, do you know of another location that could be cited? I've attached asubstantially simplified copyright. Would you please review it and offer critique? I went for the following approach, similarly to xfsprogs and linux-src: > * a blanket statement, listing maybe some major holders but with a stress on > "and others". The rules I used to order it were 1) license, alphabetised 2) date 3) exception for debian/* to put it near the end of GPL-2+ 4) Removed configure and autoconf stuff which was either "redistributable without notice" or able to be relicensed under the GPL-2 glob. Further compaction of the GPL-2+ exceptions is probably possible. Please let me know! Cheers, Nicholas
Attachment:
copyright
Description: Binary data