Hi Bernhard, thanks for your feedback! Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 15:03 +0200 schrieb Bernhard R. Link: > * Manuel Prinz <debian@pinguinkiste.de> [080528 00:34]: > > 1. What license should we use for the document? > > Is there so much in the worth protectable? Otherwise making it public > domain or basically public domain looks also like a choice to consider. No. PD would be my choice as well. Don't know about Sylvestre's opinion on that. > Suggestions about the draft: > > | The <ulink url="http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat";> > | machine-readable format</ulink> must be used. > > That format has still quite a bit of "yet to be discussed" in it. > It also has still quite some shortcoming with complicated distribution > about Copyright owners. That about a ", as long as expressable this > way." added to this? Sounds reasonable, thanks! I'll add this. > | The <varname>DM-Upload-Allowed</varname> should be included and set to > | "yes". > > I do not think adding this field as along as there are no Uploaders is > that sensible. I'd rather suggest some rule that this field should not > be removed without the consents of the "Uploaders" or something like > that. (Because I definitly will not sponsor/upload any package with this > header set unless the header and the same set of uploaders is already in the > archive (and even then only with feeling pain)). > > | but <ulink url="http://packages.debian.org/cdbs";>CDBS</ulink> is preferred. > > Just my 0.02¢ vote against this. (Or at least mention debhelper as equal). Debhelper is of course fine too and I like it much. The reason for that is that from my experience in teams CDBS can reduce the time needed for QA work a lot if upstream's build system is not horribly broken. But I do know that a lot of people have strong feelings about that, usually not too positive. It has it's disadvantages but especially in teams it was valuable for me more than once. (I usually use CDBS + Debhelper.) I'll add a paragraph about that. We can also change it to Debhelper. That's what is discussion is for: To find a consensus about that. At the moment, it is just a suggestion. > * Other stuff: > > I'm missing something explicit about general comitt rights/etiquette. > Can anyone add himself to the Uploaders of every package? Who is allowed to > make which modifications to which packages's repository? Are obvious > non-intrusive fixes in other people's packages in the project ok? > And stuff like that. Good point, I really did not think about that all the way through. I personally would be OK if someone from the team would make non-intrusive changes, meaning something that one would i.e. change in an NMU. With Uploaders, this is a little different. I think of Uploaders as the "Maintainer" field for the team, meaning that the people listed there are the ones who would normally be in the Maintainer field and do most of the work. I would not like people to add theirselfs without asking but could accept it. Removing others is tricky either and I currently lack of a good solution to that. Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil