On la, 2011-01-22 at 14:47 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So a License could appear without a Copyright (to indicate the effective
license of a work), but a Copyright should not appear without a License.
If that's true, I think it's important to call it out in the spec.
I'll add the following
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Malvina Treuil
Consultant Contrôle Commerce International
International Trade Control Consultant
Global Supply Chain
GE Healthcare
T +33 1 30 70 75 36
F +33 1 30 70 98 90
E malvina.tre...@ge.com
283 rue de la Minière
78530 Buc France
GE
Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Not having looked at the code, I'm wondering: do you apply these
translations to all files regardless of the Format/Format-Specification
field's value, or are you selective about only applying these upgrades to
fields that were
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit :
I don't think, for instance, that a file that has a declaration of
Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ [1] should have 'Maintainer'
fields auto-upgraded to
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Not having looked at the code, I'm wondering: do you apply these
translations to all files regardless of the Format/Format-Specification
field's value, or are you
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:29:03PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't think people should be adding random fields here without first
*defining* those fields; and with DEP5, defining them is as
straightforward as taking a copy of the DEP, adding your field
definitions to it, posting that
6 matches
Mail list logo
