-=| Jeffrey Ratcliffe, Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 09:52:09PM +0100 |=- > 2009/2/3 Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org>: > > debian/copyright > > I moved the whole thing to the new proposed format. Dunno why I didn't > do it the first time. Now there is discrepancy between upstream copyright statement and the contents of debian/copyright. I have changed the distribution back to UNRELEASED and leaf a note in the changelog. The problem is that you have used "same as Perl 5 or later", and upstream really said "same as Perl", which implies "any version of Perl". So the correct code is not GPL-2+|Artistic-2.0, but GPL-1+|Artistic. Also, I think something like the following is better: Files: * Copyright: upstream License: GPL-1+|Artistic Foo-Bar is free software, you may distribute under the terms of Perl itself. . Perl is distributed ..... Does this looks like a feasible approach to the rest of the group (perhaps the dh-make-perl template should be adapted to that)? I think the current practice is somewhat cutting edges and since this is debian/copyright and everything in there better be clear... > >> P.S. Is there any problem preparing packages depending on something in > >> the NEW queue? > > > > No. Building them in chroot is a bit tricky, but doable. > > No doubt I would enforcing the trickiness on any sponsor as well... > The trouble is, with the current length of the NEW queue... Not a problem for me. I use a reprepro package repository dedicated to contain packages that are in NEW. I have it added to the pbuilder chroot so everything just works. -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature