[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reporting 1.2K crashes

On Friday 28 June 2013 13:28:59 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer (2013-06-27 19:42:16)
> > On Thursday 27 June 2013 11:19:40 Alexandre Rebert wrote:
> > > > I do not think that you should try to implement this immediately
> > > > but from a Debian Maintainers point of view we now could present a
> > > > case where it makes perfectly sense to use DEP5 formated copyright
> > > > files and if we try to do this more strictly future tests could
> > > > profit from it.
> > > 
> > > For our purposes, it would useful to have a way to extract upstream
> > > developers' addresses automatically. I'd love to see DEP5 adopted
> > > for this reason.
> > 
> > But even if adopted and up to date, it doesn't means that's the
> > correct way of dealing with upstream. Many addresses will be of former
> > developers, and in most situations it will not be the best way to
> > contact upstream. Some will want a mail to a specific mailing list,
> > some other to open an issue in their bugtracker, ...
> I disagree with your remark that "...it will not be the best way...":
> DEP5 Upstream-Contact hint is defined as the preferred form of contact
> for upstream.
> So if adopted and up-to-date, it will be the correct (and will also be
> up-to-date - that's obviously implied from it being, ahem, up-to-date).

I don't mind if that field is available as long as it's optional, filled only 
if the maintainer[s] want to invest time on that. Personally I think it's even 
more burden on what we already have.

And DEP5 is fine as long as you don't hit a source wich makes it grow above 
12k+ lines. Then it becames a real PITA.

18: Como se pueden evitar los problemas de alimentacion electrica
    * No coma cerca de un enchufe
    Damian Nadales

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: