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

Bug#912736: apt-listbugs and APT team (was: Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25)


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

Reply to: