From onitake at gmail.com  Mon Nov 20 11:29:49 2017
From: onitake at gmail.com (Gregor Riepl)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:29:49 +0100
Subject: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#844268: libboost1.62-doc doesn't contain the
	actual documentation
In-Reply-To: <20171024030004.3uw7uxbxfn5wtged@sumost.ca>
References: <149294131585.22798.6638283902945099231.reportbug@sensei.seismic.de>
 <20171024030004.3uw7uxbxfn5wtged@sumost.ca>
 <20171024030004.3uw7uxbxfn5wtged@sumost.ca>
 <38a104ca-dff7-4982-6993-5d5a22ea721e@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0cb9de1-00b2-bd0f-8504-150484256e12@gmail.com>

> W: libboost1.65-doc: privacy-breach-generic usr/share/doc/libboost1.65-doc/HTML/libs/assert/doc/html/assert.html (https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=open+sans:300,300italic,400,400italic,600,600italic%7cnoto+serif:400,400italic,700,700italic%7cdroid+sans+mono:400,700)

Both Open Sans and Noto are available as Debian packages.

May I suggest adding a
Recommends: fonts-open-sans
if it isn't already there?

This doesn't actually help with the document building process, but at least
the presentation is covered.


From ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org  Tue Nov 28 09:00:10 2017
From: ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org (Chris Lamb)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:00:10 +0000
Subject: [pkg-boost-devel] boost1.65.1_1.65.1+dfsg-1_multi.changes REJECTED
Message-ID: <E1eJbkQ-000BA1-QA@fasolo.debian.org>


Hi,

Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files"
unfortunatley does not meet the high standards we strive for within Debian.


Best wishes,

 -- Chris Lamb <lamby at debian.org>  Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:46:13 +0000



===

Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
concerns.



From steve at sumost.ca  Thu Nov 30 05:46:00 2017
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve Robbins)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:46:00 -0600
Subject: [pkg-boost-devel] Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?
In-Reply-To: <E1eJbkQ-000BA1-QA@fasolo.debian.org>
References: <E1eJbkQ-000BA1-QA@fasolo.debian.org>
Message-ID: <3153927.WHzoAGL0a1@riemann>

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files"
> unfortunatley does not meet the high standards we strive for within Debian.

That is odd.  It has been accepted for over 16 years.   What has changed?   

It is useful to me that the debian/copyright file contain the distribution 
license.  For a one-author package, it could even be convenient to describe 
the author and copyright.

But for a massive multi-author, multi-year work like Boost, there seems very 
little value in summarizing copyrights.  Boost has nearly 55000 files in the 
source distribution.  What could one possibly achieve by summarizing this?  
How would anyone even read and make sense of it?

Has copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness for large sources?  Why 
shouldn't we have some way to say "Copyright by the Boost authors"?

-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/attachments/20171129/5bff4ff6/attachment.sig>