Re: Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 05:53:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Steve Langasek steve.langa...@canonical.com writes: Clarify what is meant by verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license to be explicit about what Debian has always required for this file, to put to rest the silly arguments that this should be parsed as (copyright and distribution) license. I'm discussing it on debian-devel precisely because I want to know *which* interpretation is the project's understanding. I don't think a fiat “clarification” to Policy is justified without that. You continue to insist on having a discussion about what Policy *means*. I've told you repeatedly what it means. This answer is authoritative not because I have some authority personally, but because this is the meaning that has *been consistently applied for the past decade*. Since you aren't willing to accept that this is the case, and therefore persist in an interpretation of Policy that is *wrong* with respect to the intent of the authors and the project, I have proposed to fix the language to eliminate the ambiguity. This is why the bug is tagged as 'informative'. If any DDs disagree that this is what Policy says, they are welcome to object. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: You continue to insist on having a discussion about what Policy *means*. I've told you repeatedly what it means. This answer is authoritative not because I have some authority personally, but because this is the meaning that has *been consistently applied for the past decade*. The application has not been consistent. You wrote a message laying out an explanation for the inconsistency (for which I thank you). Before we move on with arguing for a change from what ftpmaster's position is, I'd like to know from the ftpmasters *what* that position is, so that pronouncement can be referenced publicly. -- \ “Anyone who puts a small gloss on [a] fundamental technology, | `\ calls it proprietary, and then tries to keep others from | _o__) building on it, is a thief.” —Tim O'Reilly, 2000-01-25 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 22:25:56 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Tags: patch User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Usertags: informative Clarify what is meant by verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license to be explicit about what Debian has always required for this file, to put to rest the silly arguments that this should be parsed as (copyright and distribution) license. If someone wants to argue that Policy should *not* require reproducing the copyright notices when this is not required by the license, let them argue that Policy should be changed rather than wrongly claiming it's not a Policy requirement. Seconded. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Tags: patch User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Usertags: informative Clarify what is meant by verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license to be explicit about what Debian has always required for this file, to put to rest the silly arguments that this should be parsed as (copyright and distribution) license. If someone wants to argue that Policy should *not* require reproducing the copyright notices when this is not required by the license, let them argue that Policy should be changed rather than wrongly claiming it's not a Policy requirement. --- policy.sgml |6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 76ac0d4..aea4358 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ p Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file + its copyright notices and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). /p @@ -1639,7 +1639,7 @@ headingCopyright: filedebian/copyright/file/heading p Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file + its copyright notices and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). Also see ref id=pkgcopyright for further considerations related @@ -9108,7 +9108,7 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY p Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its - copyright and distribution license in the file + copyright notices and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file. This file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. /p Seconded. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#553135: sendmail-base: maintainer-script-calls-init-script-directly prerm:67 than using invoke-rc.d. The use of invoke-rc.d to invoke the /etc/init.d/* initscripts instead of calling them dire
Hi, thanks to Manoj for pointing this out and Richard for explaining it. Unfortunately this rc bug is still open after two months. Short summary: sendmail-base.prerm invokes an init script without invoke-rc.d which technically is forbidden by the Debian policy. (report from Manoj) The part that is invoked is not a standard command (clean) and would that way produce a warning. (pointed out by Richard) Let me outline possible solutions: 1) Tag it as wontfix and decrease severity. The reason for using invoke-rc.d is that it can prevent starting and stopping daemons when this is not desired. Cleaning the queue does not interfere with this. 2) Use invoke-rc.d --force. (suggested by Richard) 3) Move the queue cleaning script somewhere else and call it from the init script. Please decide about a solution and solve this issue. Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#553135: sendmail-base: maintainer-script-calls-init-script-directly prerm:67 than using invoke-rc.d. The use of invoke-rc.d to invoke the /etc/init.d/* initscripts instead of calling them dire
Helmut Grohne hel...@subdivi.de writes: thanks to Manoj for pointing this out and Richard for explaining it. Unfortunately this rc bug is still open after two months. Short summary: sendmail-base.prerm invokes an init script without invoke-rc.d which technically is forbidden by the Debian policy. (report from Manoj) The part that is invoked is not a standard command (clean) and would that way produce a warning. (pointed out by Richard) Let me outline possible solutions: 1) Tag it as wontfix and decrease severity. The reason for using invoke-rc.d is that it can prevent starting and stopping daemons when this is not desired. Cleaning the queue does not interfere with this. 2) Use invoke-rc.d --force. (suggested by Richard) 3) Move the queue cleaning script somewhere else and call it from the init script. Please decide about a solution and solve this issue. Personally, I find it strange to use init script targets for things like cleaning the mail queue, which doesn't (at least on first glance) have much to do with starting or stopping the service, which is the function of the init script. Why not just call the relevant commands directly or provide a sendmail-clean shell script that does this? If I were an administrator, I wouldn't think to look in the init script for that functionality. That being said, this is clearly not the problem that either Policy or the Lintian tag were designed to catch, and you should feel free to decrease the severity and add an override. Also, please feel free to report a bug against Lintian for issuing this warning when the init script is being called with a non-standard function (ie, not start, stop, reload, restart, or force-reload). -- 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
Re: Bug#553135: sendmail-base: maintainer-script-calls-init-script-directly prerm:67 than using invoke-rc.d. The use of invoke-rc.d to invoke the /etc/init.d/* initscripts instead of calling them dire
severity 553135 normal thanks On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:50:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: That being said, this is clearly not the problem that either Policy or the Lintian tag were designed to catch, and you should feel free to decrease the severity and add an override. Also, please feel free to report a bug Thanks for your input. I just downgrade the severity for now, so others don't try to fix it as an rc bug. Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?
Le Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 02:48:39PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Especially in combination with your later points (that the copyright notices can't be “corrected”, which I take to imply that aggregation and re-phrasing of the notices is also verboten), there seems to be little point reproducing the verbatim copyright *notices*, especially since they're all in the source regardless. Dear all, Given that the patch that is being rushed in the Policy (#566220) does not clarify what is meant by “verbatim”, I urge the Policy maintainers or the archive administrators to confirm if and when aggregation of the copyright notices is permitted. Alternatively, we could start a GR to at last find an exit to this endless debate (In that case, I would propose that the only requirement is to respect the license and the copyright laws, and that any extra is welcome but optional). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Le Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 02:48:39PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Especially in combination with your later points (that the copyright notices can't be “corrected”, which I take to imply that aggregation and re-phrasing of the notices is also verboten), there seems to be little point reproducing the verbatim copyright *notices*, especially since they're all in the source regardless. Dear all, Given that the patch that is being rushed in the Policy (#566220) does not clarify what is meant by “verbatim”, That's because there isn't a precise definition in existing practice, and the purpose of that change is to document existing practice unless and until we reach some consensus for changing it. Not to set some new standard other than what we've historically followed. The current practice is that verbatim is not a clearly defined term and people are using a common-sense, and imprecise, definition. Incidentally, don't you think it's a little inaccurate and melodramatic to describe as rushed something that hasn't even been committed to a Git repository yet, let alone put into any sort of release, and whose only action so far has been some discussion and three seconds? -- 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
Bug#566220: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?
Le Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:11:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : The current practice is that verbatim is not a clearly defined term and people are using a common-sense, and imprecise, definition. Then let's face the complex reality and document what you described in the Policy. What is sure is that the practice does not enforce “verbatim” stricto-sensu. We could write ‘copyright notices must be reproduced in debian/copyright; they can be agregated to a degree that is left to the appreciation of the archive administrators’. Anyway, I think that I have taken my decision and will propose a GR later. We wasted already too much time on this issue. Not everybody has the same common sense, so we need clear guidelines. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#566220: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: The patch that has been submitted to Policy is to eliminate a single ambiguity in the wording that permits a particular twisted interpretation of the phrase verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license which is historically incorrect. Is the opinion of ftpmaster on this issue irrelevant, then? If not, surely it's better to get ftpmaster's position on this, so the change to policy wording can be made on that basis. Can someone who has some kind of means to get an actual *response* from ftpmaster (all my attempts have failed) please get their position expressed in our public mailing lists? -- \ “Progress might have been all right once, but it's gone on too | `\long.” —Ogden Nash | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
