Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:55)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
>> Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-08-15 23:02:06)
>>> So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we
>>> continue to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to
>>> do so?
>>
>> Same reason that we should continue to care about ability to install
>> multiple major versions of a library concurrently, and that daemons
>> are not only linked correctly but also sensibly configured and
>> started by default.
>>
>> Not because we are legally bound to do so, but because we want to do
>> our job as distributors properly. We appreciate good quality
>> packaging!
>
> Does that justify REJECTing a package which is imperfect in this
> respect, though ?Good question. Thanks for bringing me back to the start of this thread :-) No, not categorically: That unfairly punishes¹ packages improving their info. But I strongly believe we should not stop caring either. Similar to how we strongly encourage use of proper SONAME even if not done upstream, or readily working daemon config - but do not mandate it: It seems realistic to me that we raise the bar in the future, e.g. by tagging those daemons and libraries being excellent, and similarly those copyright files with full machine-readable coverage. - Jonas ¹ netatalk is missing from Jessie solely due to improved licensing info otherwise unnoticed for 15 years: https://bugs.debian.org/751121 -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
