Hello Chris, On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 08:18:29PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > So either the spec needs clarification (which I doubt) or the lintian > > check should be relaxed. > > I ACK that this might be valid spec-wise. I note, however, that this > has been in Lintian since early 2013: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/29bd97f6e86f795c97f33747691fcf4a2c6e1060 > > Does that alter your view on this at all?
I personally like to have the licenses listed first, as the reader
than has a clear view of what he is expecting, before getting the
details. However, I can live with both versions, so if it is too late
to fix lintian than so be it.
Greetings
Helge
P.S. In one of my packages I now switched because having to include an
entire license makes it hard to read otherwise.
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
