Your message dated Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:15:33 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#342589: apcalc: copyright year not substituted?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Dec 2005 18:47:52 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 08 10:47:52 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55])
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1EkQo4-0007fU-J3
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:47:52 -0800
Received: from andromeda (cpe-69-202-136-66.twcny.res.rr.com [69.202.136.66])
by ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
jB8IlnFe027154
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:47:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pryzbyj by andromeda with local (Exim 4.54)
id 1EkQo1-0007aG-H4
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:47:49 -0500
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:47:49 -0500
To: Debian BTS Submission <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: apcalc: copyright year not substituted?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
From: Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: apcalc
Version: 2.11.10.1-2
Severity: normal
In the output of 'help copying' I see:
Copyright (C) year David I. Bell
Copyright (C) year David I. Bell and Landon Curt Noll
Copyright (C) year David I. Bell and Ernest Bowen
Copyright (C) year David I. Bell, Landon Curt Noll and Ernest Bowen
Copyright (C) year Landon Curt Noll
Copyright (C) year Ernest Bowen and Landon Curt Noll
Copyright (C) year Ernest Bowen
Copyright (C) year Petteri Kettunen and Landon Curt Noll
Presumably "year" should contain an actual year.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 342589-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Dec 2005 23:16:06 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 12 15:16:06 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail14.bluewin.ch ([195.186.19.62])
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1Elwtp-000458-Tg
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:16:06 -0800
Received: from gromit.at.home (83.78.144.231) by mail14.bluewin.ch (Bluewin
7.2.069.1)
id 43926164001D1323 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:15:34
+0000
Received: from mb by gromit.at.home with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1ElwtJ-0007LF-00 ; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:15:33 +0100
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:15:33 +0100
From: Martin Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#342589: apcalc: copyright year not substituted?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 05:21:21PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Hmm; then why does it make sense to list authors multiple times, just
> because there were other authors of a given source file which were not
> the same as the authors of another source file? Why not just list the
> authors, then? Is this the output of a script?
I don't know. I'd probably write the copyright statements in a different
way if I were the author, but I'm not. And the fact that I (and probably
you, too :-) would do something differently doesn't necessarily mean that
there's something wrong with the current copyright statements.
Feel free to discuss this directly with upstream if you disagree. I'll
happily follow their decision, but I don't think I can help at the moment.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
