"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <c...@debian.org> writes: > The common-licenses was done (IIRC) to save disk space, so to use such > criteria, I would count only packages with priority >= standard, or a > proof that most systems have the verbatim license installed many times).
That's roughly the sort of criteria that we've been using, but note that while iceweasel is not priority: standard, it's installed by about 50% of the popcon-reporting systems, so it's very widely installed. (Which isn't horribly surprising.) On the other hand, it's mostly installed on systems with plenty of disk space. > Personally I don't think policy should discuss so many licenses, Well, bear in mind that we just saw a flood of this because I just caught up from several years of backlog. Normally we don't get these requests all that often. > so, I would like: > - make clear and strong requirements for new licenses (e.g. > we should include only few licenses), or This is roughly what I've been trying to do in my replies to the current bugs. > - move the choice outside policy procedure (e.g. maintainer > of base-files). The base-files maintainer doesn't want to be the one who decides this. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ocfhcvf6....@windlord.stanford.edu
