Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 09:14PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Looks okay to me. As an alternative, we could encourage packages to
>> add an explicit Build-Depends on netbase if they need this
>> functionality.
>>
>> I think in the long run, I would prefer that since
Hello,
On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 06:20PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I would have expected to find this information in debian/copyright. The
> Source field there sometimes names an upstream VCS but isn't required to
> do so; I'd be in favor of some tightening of the requirements in
>
Hello,
On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 09:14PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Looks okay to me. As an alternative, we could encourage packages to
> add an explicit Build-Depends on netbase if they need this
> functionality.
>
> I think in the long run, I would prefer that since it would make the
>
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 20:57:41 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
>it, and giving a relevant date.
I don't think this is normally interpreted as requiring that *all*
modifications be listed, only that the existence of
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:05:16PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> index 1de221f..e990f34 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> @@ -255,32 +255,45 @@ files may be installed into ``/usr/share/doc/package``.
>
> ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:20:52 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > In fact, there is: the Repository field in debian/upstream/metadata.[1]
>
> Neat!
>
> I would have expected to find this information in debian/copyright. The
> Source field there sometimes names an upstream VCS but isn't required
Sean Whitton writes:
> It's become clear that we do not have consensus on recommending that
> only the release notes be installed, and not also the changelog.
I'm happy to see this go into Policy, but I find it unfortunate that we're
unwilling to take a stance against this. The source-level
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:47:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> A set of files under the license GPL-3+ and [GPL-3+] are under exactly the
> same license, so it is confusing and strange to use different identifiers
> based on a technical point about what information is included elsewhere in
> the
Sean Whitton writes:
> We now know that we can go ahead with the main proposal to introduce the
> "[GPL-3+]" notation into our machine-readable copyright format.
I'm going to reiterate my objection to the brackets. I'm opposed to
introducing this new syntax; I believe it serves no purpose.
A
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:05:33AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +moreinfo
> Even if we did want to add this to d/control files, we would want to see
> it already used in d/control files in the archive before documenting
> that in Policy.
Thanks Sean. This is an interesting
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 Specify a canonical location for upstream's VCS to be declared
Bug #904608 [debian-policy] Support specifying upstream VCS location in
debian/control
Changed Bug title to 'Specify a canonical location for upstream's VCS to be
declared' from 'Support
Control: retitle -1 Specify a canonical location for upstream's VCS to be
declared
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:20:52PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> My feeling is that it doesn't belong in debian/control.
>
> The debian/control file is the source for control fields that appear
> in the binary
12 matches
Mail list logo
