Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
At the cost of some complexity in code, we can eliminate a lot of
complexity in our data.
There is redundancy, yes. Is that what you're calling complexity? Or is
there some significant complexity in the data of the ‘debian/copyright’
file that you've got in
On 01/09/11 07:15, Ben Finney wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
At the cost of some complexity in code, we can eliminate a lot of
complexity in our data.
There is redundancy, yes. Is that what you're calling complexity? Or is
there some significant complexity in the data of the
Le Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:46:32AM +0100, Ximin Luo a écrit :
That would be really really ugly pointless code and I'm not going to do that.
Much easier to cp $LICENSE and cat $LICENSE.
Hi all,
how about a repository of ready-made stand-alone license paragraphs ? This
could be easily set up
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 at 18:01:42 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
how about a repository of ready-made stand-alone license paragraphs ?
Perhaps, but be careful with that sort of thing: it may *look* like your
package's license, but is it actually the same text?
For a long named license like the
On 31/08/11 02:57, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
On 29/08/11 17:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
The project decided to say that our packages are intended for use on a
Debian system with the essential Debian packages installed and hence
not duplicate licenses that are in
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
OK, thanks for clarifying. I take it then that should implies not
necessary in this policy quote:
A copy of the file which will be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the
source package.
should is documented at
On 31/08/11 21:49, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
OK, thanks for clarifying. I take it then that should implies not
necessary in this policy quote:
A copy of the file which will be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the
Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com writes:
At the cost of some complexity in code, we can eliminate a lot of
complexity in our data.
Ther is redundancy, yes. Is that what you're calling complexity? Or is
there some significant complexity in the ‘debian/copyright’ file that
you've got in mind?
With
On 29/08/11 17:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good
Hi,
Ximin Luo wrote:
I don't think disk space is an issue these days
I think that's the real point of disagreement here, for what it's
worth.
common-licenses is part of base-files, which is included on every
Debian installation. Some do need to be small.
(No opinion on whether the MPL
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good idea.
It's important to remember that
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good idea.
And FWIW, since
12 matches
Mail list logo
