Re: status of DEP5: Machine-readable debian/copyright (was: Patch Tagging Guidelines: DEP-3 moved to ACCEPTED status)

2012-01-17 Thread Bastien ROUCARIES
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 01/17/2012 01:44 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already well established, I just changed the

Re: status of DEP5: Machine-readable debian/copyright (was: Patch Tagging Guidelines: DEP-3 moved to ACCEPTED status)

2012-01-17 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:07:54PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES a écrit : Yes one question do I need to document aclocal.m4 copyright patchwork ? Dear Bastien, judging from the packages that are accepted in our archive, the empirical answer is no. Nevertheless, the DEP 5 format and any free-form

Re: status of DEP5: Machine-readable debian/copyright (was: Patch Tagging Guidelines: DEP-3 moved to ACCEPTED status)

2012-01-16 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 01/17/2012 01:44 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE to ACCEPTED. Of course this does