Hello, Recently, Samuel Thibault pointed out that some parts of GNU hello don't follow guidelines for GNU package maintainers very closely. I checked the most recent release, hello-2.10, and it seemed to me that a few files weren't arranged as recommmended in [0].
[0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html.gz#Legal-Matters (I don't report against the current VCS HEAD because the results of bootstrapping could depend on the versions of software used.) In short, the guidelines say, * every file should have valid copyright and license notices; * if the format of the file has no place for comments, these notices should be written in a README file in the same directory; * if the file is generated, the notice should at least say that it's generated and what files it's generated from; * if the file is copied from another package (including GNU ones), the maintainer who copies the file should ensure its compliance. So, contrib/de_franconian_po.txt po/fa.po po/he.po po/it.po po/ka.po po/nn.po po/pt.po lack a license notice. ABOUT-NLS build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk contrib/evolution.txt lib/memchr.valgrind po/bg.gmo po/ca.gmo po/da.gmo po/de.gmo po/el.gmo po/eo.gmo po/es.gmo po/et.gmo po/eu.gmo po/fa.gmo po/fi.gmo po/fr.gmo po/ga.gmo po/gl.gmo po/he.gmo po/hr.gmo po/hu.gmo po/id.gmo po/it.gmo po/ja.gmo po/ka.gmo po/ko.gmo po/lv.gmo po/ms.gmo po/nb.gmo po/nl.gmo po/nn.gmo po/pl.gmo po/pt_BR.gmo po/pt.gmo po/ro.gmo po/ru.gmo po/sk.gmo po/sl.gmo po/sr.gmo po/sv.gmo po/th.gmo po/tr.gmo po/uk.gmo po/vi.gmo po/zh_CN.gmo po/zh_TW.gmo po/hello.pot po/Makevars po/[email protected] po/[email protected] po/insert-header.sin po/remove-potcdate.sin po/Rules-quot ChangeLog NEWS README-release lack copyright and license notices. Do I misinterpret anything?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
