Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #910804
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.policy |
| Subject | Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal |
| Date | 2018-08-02 06:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <widIJ-2H2-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <wg253-34s-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <uUSFz-5HI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <widIJ-2H2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <uUSFz-5HI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <widIJ-2H2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | The Eyrie |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> writes: > Please keep it simple. I disagree that we would need a version bump of > copyright format 1.0 which had to be documented in every > debian/copyright file again by changing the Format field. A simple > amendment would also do the trick which could be referenced by the > Policy and our copyright format 1.0 document. Well, I gave my reason why I think we need a version bump. Could you explain why you think it's not necessary with a more specific discussion that answers that analysis? > Updating a single tool, a parser like Lintian, is far more efficient > than updating ten thousands of source packages again. They don't have to update the version unless they want to use the new feature, at which point they're being modified anyway. I would expect to have 1.0-format files in the archive for years, and that's fine. That's the reason why there's a version number. The first version bump is always the hardest, but if we're going to have a version number at all, we should bump it when we make backward-incompatible changes. The whole point to having a version number is to change it when something changes that a consumer needs to be aware of. > Please also read what Joerg Jaspert has written in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883950#80 > again. Even the ftp-masters prefer a keep it simple solution and they > support our proposal to reduce boilerplate. I don't think Joerg recognized the backwards-compatibility issue. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-08-02 06:50 +0200
Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2018-08-02 10:40 +0200
Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2018-08-02 12:40 +0200
Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-08-03 09:50 +0200
Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-08-02 19:10 +0200
Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 05:10 +0200
Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 05:20 +0200
csiph-web