On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:47:31 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote: [...] > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:39:48AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > That sounds like a reasonable suggestion: how can I still ship it in > > the binary package? I guess I should add a debian/apt-listbugs.docs > > file having "README.md" as its only line. > > Is that right? > > Yes, that should work. OK, I will try. And then perhaps I will try and split the document into a general README.md and some more specialized doc/*.md documents (and list all of them in debian/apt-listbugs.docs), as I said... [...] > > what information should the LICENSE file contain? > > Pretty the same as debian/copyright, I guess. > > My remark was triggered by salsa proclaiming "No license. All rights > reserved" which can be fixed just by having the GPL-2 text in a LICENSE > file; so you don't need to maintain two files just an embedded copy of > the text as "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public > License along with this program". Well, but the LICENSE file should still be a correct summary of the debian/copyright file: that's why I was assuming they should be two copies of the same file (in order to avoid the burden of always having to remember to check that a distinct LICENSE file still constitutes an accurate summary of the licensing status...). [...] > You found out how apt is doing this in a later mail… but apt is really > not a role-model here. In fact, it confuses salsa also, just less so. How does this strategy confuse salsa? > > src:apt should rename COPYING.GPL to COPYING and the original COPYING > perhaps merged with AUTHORS while a dep5 debian/copyright is written… > oh look, a butterfly! How pretty! … What was I talking about again? > So yeah, it kinda works what apt is doing, but that doesn't mean its > a good idea – it should in fact be changed, but there seem to be always > better ways to "waste" our time. ;) I am not sure I understand what are you suggesting me to do. What would be the best practice? [about the APT team umbrella] > > Thanks a lot for offering this: what would it mean, exactly, from a > > practical point of view? > > Well, not sure given there are a lot of possibilities. Being in a team > namespace rather than a user namespace has the advantage that it "looks" > more official and access can be e.g. more easily granted to others in > case of MIAs (but that of course never happens, thankfully). If the team > would also be the "maintainer" we would have deity@lists.debian.org for > discussion/bugs rather than a personal private mail inbox: The hoped for > most practical change might be increased "cross-pollination" in > bugreports then. If the maintainer field is set to <deity@l.d.o>, then I would obviously need to subscribe to that list, and the e-mail traffic related to apt-listbugs would be intermingled with the rest of the messages directed there. I am not sure I can afford such an increase in my incoming e-mail traffic... Not in the short term, at least... Other than that, what else could formally show the moving of apt-listbugs under the APT umbrella? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpQRgb3uwNK2.pgp
Description: PGP signature