On 16 August 2016 at 14:32, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"): >> Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-08-15 23:02:06) >> > So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we continue >> > to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to do so? >> >> Same reason that we should continue to care about ability to install >> multiple major versions of a library concurrently, and that daemons are >> not only linked correctly but also sensibly configured and started by >> default. >> >> Not because we are legally bound to do so, but because we want to do our >> job as distributors properly. We appreciate good quality packaging! > > Does that justify REJECTing a package which is imperfect in this > respect, though ? I wish it wouldn't. I'm struggling packaging GPLv3 software for which I am also an upstream, Kallithea, as it depends on a bunch of free software JavaScript libraries. However, using them in a Proper Way is such amount of work none of my comaintainers nor I have managed to complete in two years. I attempted to upload what I have during DebConf, and (obviously) my upload was REJECTed. Le sigh. -- Cheers, Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature