[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

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

Other than that, what else could formally show the moving of
apt-listbugs under the APT umbrella?

 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

Reply to: