Re: DEP 12: Per-package machine-readable metadata about Upstream
Paul Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Of course, the other issue that this DEP raises is how much sense it
>> makes to put all this stuff in the source package, either in
>> debian/control or in a new file, given that most of these fields (even
>> including Maintainer, although moving that probably isn't a good idea)
>> can change independent of any functional change in the source package.
> That sounds like you maybe want DEP-2:
Not really. DEP-2 only addresses one part of my point, and proposes a
very specific solution to that problem.
I'd be happy to see DEP-2 happen, certainly. But I wouldn't want to block
this discussion on the implementation of a comprehensive infrastructure
that does all the things discussed in DEP-2.
My point, rather, is that a bunch of the stuff that's being discussed as
relevant to debian/upstream can change independent of any functional
change in the package, and therefore the proposal raises the question of
whether we want to put even more non-functional metadata directly into the
source package instead of somewhere with lighter-weight update processes.
I think this is particularly relevant to any information that isn't
specific to a particular upstream version of the package.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>