On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:13:30PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > I always use this as one argument when it comes to "Why should be care
> > about Debian? Our users use something else", that packaging includes a
> > careful review and documentation of the copyright.
> Usually only for the initial upload, though.
+ package renamings and new binary packages (which sometimes let me
hesitate to do a necessary package split since I'm afraid that it takes
longer to release a new version. Fortunately ftpmaster became quite
quick in the last time).
I admit I'm not convinced that a change in the binary package name is a
sensible criterion to pick a (random) package for re-checking
debian/copyright.
Apropos binary package: I do not yet know what exactly would have been
the solution to my initial problem of the copyright of auto-generated
files in the binary package. Does this mean the issue is void or not?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
