On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:10:27AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > # 2.3.3. The description of a package > # ----------------------------------- > # Copyright statements and > # other administrivia should not be included either (that is what the > # copyright file is for). > The description for lsh-utils begins: > Description: A Secure Shell v2 (SSH2) protocol implementation -- server > lsh is GNU GPL'd implementation of the Secure Shell > protocol version 2 (SSH2). The SSH (Secure SHell) protocol > is a secure replacement for rlogin, rsh and rcp.
A copyright statement looks like:
``Copyright (c) 2001 Anthony Towns''
If the license is particularly relevant to the package (as in the case of
ssh v lsh v ssh-nonfree), it's appropriate for the description.
So at this point, are people doing this specifically to annoy me, or what?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
pgpHKYK1xXsNA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
