On Thursday, November 7, 2019 1:26:42 AM EST Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > in a change to UpstreamMetadata in Wiki[1] Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > These fields must still be allowed, as not all packagers wish to use DEP > 5. > > I admit I'm astonished about this. From my point of view DEP5 was > decided to be good packaging practice and I assumed that not changing to > DEP5 would be a matter of "not important for me to spent my time on a > DEP5 conversion". However, I'm reading Thorstens statement as an > explicit wish to not use DEP5. I wonder what other reasons might exist > to explicitly stick to the non-machine readable format. > > I would love to see another discussion here to reach more uniformity in > Debian packaging and rise importance of DEP5 by recommending it in > Debian Policy. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata?action=diff&rev1=134&rev2=135 Although I use it for simple packages, for complex ones I think it makes debian/copyright maintenance much harder (many more things to get wrong). It's totally optional and should absolutely stay that way. The purpose of debian/copyright is to support license compliance. Anything beyond that isn't relevant to its purpose within Debian. While I recognize that the structured format has benefits for some people, I don't think it matters much within the project. Let's stick to making rules we actually need. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.