On 13-Feb-2016, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 06:13:28 PM Ben Finney wrote: > > Even if the license conditions are deliberately the same as the > > “Files: *” paragraph? I thought one good reason to choose to grant > > license on ‘debian/*’ the same as the upstream work, was to not > > need those exceptions described. > > But you need to add your own copyright statement. It is better when > all licensing/copyright information is consolidated in > "debian/copyright". Ah, of course you're right. The copyright statement needs to be in a “Files: debian/*” stanza. > IMHO Git is not too hard to use unless you use git-buildpackage > workflow. (That seems strange to me: hard to use if using ‘git-buildpackage’? I think you mean the opposite sense “not too hard to use if you use ‘git-buildpackage’ workflow”.) Yes, I agree that in 2016, with upstream support effectively dead and with common workflows evolving beyond what Bazaar can do, maintaining packages in a Bazaar repository is only becoming more of a hindrance. I am steadily adapting each of my packages to Git. -- \ “All persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental.” | `\ —_Timequake_, Kurt Vonnegut | _o__) | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature