At 18:00 Uhr -0500 26.01.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> OK, it now doesn't warn for bundle package. it still warns for
>> nosource packages, though - the difference between those essentially
>> is that "bundle" works as an umbrella for other packages, h
Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, it now doesn't warn for bundle package. it still warns for
> nosource packages, though - the difference between those essentially
> is that "bundle" works as an umbrella for other packages, hence
> doesn't need a license field. But "nosource" means a s
At 23:12 Uhr +0100 26.01.2002, Max Horn wrote:
>At 17:04 Uhr -0500 26.01.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>>Thanks, Max, for doing all of this package validation stuff.
>>
>>I have one question though. For packages of type "nosource" or "bundle,"
>>do we really want a license field? If so, what sh
At 17:04 Uhr -0500 26.01.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>Thanks, Max, for doing all of this package validation stuff.
>
>I have one question though. For packages of type "nosource" or "bundle,"
>do we really want a license field? If so, what should the rules be
>about that license field? Since
Thanks, Max, for doing all of this package validation stuff.
I have one question though. For packages of type "nosource" or "bundle,"
do we really want a license field? If so, what should the rules be
about that license field? Since we are not really redistributing anything
with those packages
