Charles Plessy writes:
> in my experience with the new packages that I prepared, the FTP team is
> not requesting that debian/copyright mentions the name of the Debian
> maintainers who were involved in the initial packaging work. I therefore
> propose to align the Policy on the current practice,
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > I don't think that initial packagers should be special-cased, but the
> > copyright and licensing status of the packaging should be made clear in
> > the copyright file to the extent possible.
>
> I think that's actually handled
Don Armstrong writes:
> I don't think that initial packagers should be special-cased, but the
> copyright and licensing status of the packaging should be made clear in
> the copyright file to the extent possible.
> How to do this without making all packages instantly buggy, though, is
> tricky.
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Charles Plessy , 2011-11-29, 09:07:
> >>
> >> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> >>- sources (if any) were obtained. It should name the original
> >>- authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
* Charles Plessy , 2011-11-29, 09:07:
In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
- sources (if any) were obtained. It should name the original
- authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
- involved with its creation.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:07:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:33:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> >
> >
> > In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> > - sources (if any) were obtained. It should name the original
> > -
Le Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:33:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
>
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> - sources (if any) were obtained. It should name the original
> - authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> -
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Maybe I misunderstand, but dh-make put explicitly at the bottom of
> debian/copyright:
> : The Debian packaging is (C) #YEAR#, #USERNAME# <#EMAIL#> and
> : is licensed under the GPL, see above.
> See /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/*
> I meant about the s
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:37:54AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Copyright notices are strictly optional in countries that are signatories
> to Berne. If the copyright holder doesn't put one on, we're under no
> obligation to invent one.
We're under no *legal* obligation to invent one, true, but h
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 19:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
> > information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
> > packaging work.
>
> Under normal circumstances, it always du
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
> > information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
> > packaging work.
>
> Under normal circumstances, it always duplicates infor
On 19.08.2010 09:37, Russ Allbery wrote:
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
No, I think it is wrong!
The debian/copyright also include packaging copyright. I think the part
involved in this proposal is for such reasons. So IMHO we must still
require the names of packagers (and the specific lic
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> No, I think it is wrong!
> The debian/copyright also include packaging copyright. I think the part
> involved in this proposal is for such reasons. So IMHO we must still
> require the names of packagers (and the specific license).
We've never said or required t
On 19.08.2010 04:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy writes:
Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
packaging work.
Under normal circumstances, it always duplicates information in
debian
Charles Plessy writes:
> Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
> information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
> packaging work.
Under normal circumstances, it always duplicates information in
debian/changelog (there are some edge cases w
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Dear all,
in my experience with the new packages that I prepared, the FTP team is not
requesting that debian/copyright mentions the name of the Debian maintainers
who were involved in the initial packaging work. I therefore pr
16 matches
Mail list logo
