В Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:11:34 +0000 Jonathan Wiltshire <j...@debian.org> пишет:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 08:18:16PM +0000, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:55:41PM +0000, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > > Control: tag -1 + moreinfo > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:55:54AM +0400, Alexander Golovko wrote: > > > > Package: release.debian.org > > > > Severity: normal > > > > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > > > > Usertags: unblock > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > Please, unblock bacula-doc/5.2.6-2. > > > > This is change in major version, but this will fix situation, > > > > that we ship in wheezy different versions of package and > > > > documentation (package 5.2.6 and docs for 5.0.2). > > > > I also meant to say that debian/copyright claims the license is > > GFDL, Wheezy's upstream headers claim GPL and sid's upstream > > headers claim AGPL. That needs sorting out, preferably with a > > complete audit and update of debian/copyright. > > Ping? > Bacula (as software) in wheezy and sid distributed under terms of AGPL-3 with some exceptions. Version from squeeze distributed under terms of GPLv2+. There is incorrect debian/copyright in wheezy and sid. Bacula documentation stored in separated repo, not in the same as main code. There is no copyright info in repo, but online documentation distributed under terms of GFDL-1.2. Is it true, that we should fix debian/copyright for bacula packages and don't touch it for bacula-doc package? -- with best regards, Alexander Golovko email: alexan...@ankalagon.ru xmpp: alexan...@ankalagon.ru
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
