Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700 with message-id <87o9rlx51o....@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs has caused the Debian Bug report #633994, regarding debian-policy: confusion over what the license information in the copyright file actually means 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 this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 633994: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=633994 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.2.0 Severity: wishlist As far as I know the license data in debian/copyright states what license Debian is distributing the package under. Clearly all agree that this license must be consistent with the upstream license but I am reviewing a package where the maintainer believes it is common practice to convey both the upstream license and the Debian license in a way I find obscure. In particular in DEP-5 format the contention is that the sort license stanza specifies the upstream license and the long form Debian license. > In any case there is an inconsistency between the stated version > >>>> 1.1+ and the license text which mentions 1.2. >>> >>> Actually, I don't think there is a mismatch here. This is something >>> that, I think, is the case with many other Debian packages, including >>> some maintained by the Debian Perl Group :) The author states "1.1 or >>> later" and the packager *chooses* to point the reader to a later version >>> - the one in the common-licenses package, 1.2. You may see an example >>> of this in e.g. the libmailtools-perl or libtemplate-perl packages, >>> among others. So the question is should the requirements (either in policy or DEP-5) be tightened up or left intentionally vague? -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.10.1 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org control: usertag -1 +obsolete control: tag -1 +wontfix Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and we are closing this bug as inactive. The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most frequent to least frequent: - issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be important enough to keep an open bug around; - issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion. A fresh discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the old bug are unlikely to help very much; or - issue is not appropriate for Policy. If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the discussion, you can re-open the bug. However, please consider instead opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian, and makes clear exactly what you think should change. A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages, and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what Debian Policy should say today. -- Sean Whittonsignature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---