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 http://mx.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20080307.141449.a70fb2fc.es.html Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.