Re: Sys::SigAction
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:41:56 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> 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
Hm, I actually prefer the "stand-alone" licenses at the end because
they avoid duplication of the license boilerplate (for packages with
several Files: stanzas that all have the same license but different
copyright holders) and make reading of the Files: paragraphs easier.
In any case "License-Alias: Perl" is helpful to make the --pedantic
lintian happy (if there is a pointer to
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL).
Disclaimer: I have not followed the development of the proposed new
format closely.
> > 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.
I'm doing something similar with a local dir and a pbuilder hook, so
the burden is bearable :)
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`- You're dead, Jim. -- McCoy, "Amok Time", stardate 3372.7
Reply to: