Hi tl;dr: Please reply on deity@lists.debian.org & Francesco only. On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:25:00AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > 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 The LICENSE file of a repository tends to be the text of whatever the "default" license the project is… github, gitlab/salsa use that in their overview, compare: https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt-transport-tor says "GNU GPLv2" https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt says "LICENSE" https://salsa.debian.org/frx-guest/apt-listbugs says "No License. All rights reserved" debian/copyright is far more detailed in my view; interesting if you need that detail, but overkill if you need a quick overview. > > 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? For apt it should say "GNU GPLv2", but due to that trickery it believes we have written our own license which is a bit silly. > > > 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? We can do all sorts of things, no need to do everything at once or at all… aptitude e.g. is in the apt-team namespace on salsa, but they don't have deity@ as maintainer. Well, lets at least move that discussion over to deity@ so others get a chance to say something (which might also avoid my long delays) as this isn't really about the RFS. Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature