Re: changes to Packages file
Christian Schwarz writes:
> The argument, that this info is already included in the copyright file is
> not valid, since it's impossible to extract this information automatically
> by a script.
seconded... But then I believe we're allowed to skip the original
site from the copyrights file.
> Note, that the new fields have to go into the "package control record"
> (DEBIAN/control file) so it gets included in the Packages files
> automatically.
>
> The following fields are suggested:
>
> Author: name and email of main upstream author (copyright holder)
Multiline please. Some packages have different copyright holders.
Some packages have a set of authors. Just mentioning *one* email
address would be unfair.
> Original-Site: site/URL at which the package is originally stored
Multiline. see down.
> [quoted from the policy status mail:] The "Author" field I think is
> important for giving due credit to whom rightfully deserves it. Some
> novice Debian users might think that the maintainer mentioned in "dpkg -I"
> is the author or the upstream maintainer. That is convenient for having
> users contact the Debian maintainer instead of bypassing them for the
> upstream author. However, I am convinced it is not fair for the "real
> authors" to create this confusion. Once the package is installed, users
> can check who the real author is, but they should be able to know it from
> the beginning.
>
> The "Original-Site" field contains the "primary URL" where you can get
> the upstream sources. If there are more than one site, the others
> should be listed in "Alternate-site-1", "Alternate-site-2", etc.
Hmm, alternate-site implies that you'll find the same files
at that URL.
Looking at dosfstools, it contains mkdosfs and dosfschk, at least
I need two *different* URLs. I would like to have a multiline
field.
Original-Site:
ftp://bla/blubb
ftp://foo/bar
> Of course, this means new work for the maintainers, but we definitely have
> to implement that now. To limit the work for the individual maintainer,
> this will be done together with the new "Source-Depends" field. (I'll post
> a policy draft soon.)
Hmm, ok then. Which tools have to be changed first? Let's go.
I believe we all agree that it makes sense.
Regards
Joey
--
/ Martin Schulze * joey@infodrom.north.de * 26129 Oldenburg /
/ No question is too silly to ask, /
/ but, of course, some are too silly to answer -- perl book /
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: