Quoting Jonathan Nieder (2014-08-27 04:31:59) > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >> Le lundi, 4 août 2014, 15.19:46 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : >>> Plan forward >>> ------------ >>> >>> 1a) Release 9.06 to unstable >>> 1b) Prepare 9.14 >>> 2) Release 9.10 to unstable when 9.06 is in testing > [...] >> Any upload for Ghostscript >= 9.10 should not be done before ensuring >> that all reverse dependencies can live with an AGPL Ghostscript. > > I've been thinking more about this --- would it make sense to change > the -dev package name so maintainers of reverse dependencies have to > actively check that they've done whatever's needed to make license > compliance easy for users before adopting the new version? That's easy to do for the packaging of Ghostscript, but (deliberately) disruptive for other packages: Since there is no alternative (as is the case e.g. for libcurl4-*-dev) packages that cannot comply are essentially doomed. ...so how is it therefore in practice any different from filing RC bugs against any and all reverse dependencies, which they can simply close when verified that licensing is ok? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature