Sorry for coming back to this, I think I missed this new requirement
initially (or I skipped this thread, I don't remember...).
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 23:28:11 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 05:36:34PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
I'm also proposing changing the requirement for debian/copyright from a
should to a must. I believe that reflects existing practice. A package
that has no debian/copyright file is not going to make it into the archive
now.
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 05:36:34PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I'm also proposing changing the requirement for debian/copyright from
a should to a must. I believe that reflects existing practice. A
package that
Le Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:44:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
p
Every binary package must include a verbatim copy of its
copyright and distribution license in the file
file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file or
symlink the file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var directory to
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:39:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Should we tighten this to be a dependency on the same version? Otherwise
it would be possible to have the two packages coming from different
versions of the source package where the license changed in between,
with wrong
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:44:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
+ item
+All the requirements for using a symlink instead of a
+directory as file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/file
+described in ref id=addl-docs must be met. This means
+both packages
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
If one package is arch: any and one package is arch: all, won't the lintian
check fail anyway in the event of a -B build (as happens on all the
autobuilders), due to the arch: all package being unavailable? Would this
translate to an archive
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 09:18:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
If one package is arch: any and one package is arch: all, won't the lintian
check fail anyway in the event of a -B build (as happens on all the
autobuilders), due to the arch: all package
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 09:18:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
No, Lintian has a special tag that it issues when it's checking a binary
package in isolation and therefore can't double-check that the doc symlink
points within the same source package.
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org writes:
I like the patch in general. I have a couple of comments though:
p
- Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
- copyright and distribution license in the file
-
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -569,10 +569,14 @@
headingCopyright considerations/heading
p
- Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of
- its copyright and distribution license in the file
-
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 34a45d5..51b9adb 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -569,10 +569,14 @@
headingCopyright considerations/heading
p
- Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of
- its copyright and distribution
Hi,
Seconded.
manoj
commit 10a36221dbdef0417c8fe5dd9153843fc160acd7
Author: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
Date: Thu Nov 12 20:39:41 2009 -0800
Clarify handling of the copyright file
Be much more explicit about the alternatives for the copyright file
of a
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Severity: wishlist
The requirements for the copyright file in binary and source packages
has been the source of a lot of confusion and a lot of bug reports
against Lintian. This is an attempt to state the requirements more
specifically and more completely.
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
The requirements for the copyright file in binary and source packages
has been the source of a lot of confusion and a lot of bug reports
against Lintian. This is an attempt to state the requirements more
specifically and more completely.
This also adds
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:46:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
+ If a source package produces
+ binary packages with separate copyright files (if, for instance,
+ different binary packages produced from one source package have
+ substantially different distribution
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:46:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
+ If a source package produces
+ binary packages with separate copyright files (if, for instance,
+ different binary packages produced from one source package have
+
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:46:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
+If a source package produces
+binary packages with separate copyright files (if, for instance,
+
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
It's an additional requirement over the current Policy statement, but
according to previous statements by ftpmaster, it reflects what's
currently being enforced during NEW processing.
Here is an updated version of the patch that corrects or clarifies a few
other places in Policy.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
commit 10a36221dbdef0417c8fe5dd9153843fc160acd7
Author: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
Date: Thu Nov 12 20:39:41 2009
20 matches
Mail list logo
