Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 14:01:21 +0100
- From: Iustin Pop <iustin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process
On 2018-03-02 13:51:24, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
> > Counter proposal: let's work on ways in which uploaders can make it
> > easy and quick for ftp masters to review packages in NEW. The idea
> > should be, in my opinion, that any package that requires more than a
> > day of work to review should be rejected by default.
> How do you want to achieve this with a source package that has 13k+
> source files and where upstream does not provide a standard license
> header for each file? I.e. there is some license text and it needs to
> be quoted, but licensecheck doesn't detect the license or doesn't
> detect the copyright entry, so one has to manually inspect many files
> to get it right.
> Do you really want to reject these packages outright from Debian, even
> though they follow the DFSG?
How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if there is
no license information? If upstream cannot bother to provide headers,
how do we know the code is indeed licenced under the claimed licence?
Note: I haven't looked at the package. Maybe I misunderstand the