Re: Usage of DEP5
Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
> 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.
There are some types of debian/copyright files that are kind of annoying
to express in the machine-readable format, mostly because the copyright
state requires some discussion or is easier to express as free-form text.
I think most of those cases have reasonable solutions with some work, but
it's quite a bit more work than adding an upstream metadata file.
This seems like a fairly marginal case, and I don't have a strong opinion
about the wiki comment, but we've talked about making machine-readable
copyright more strongly encouraged from time to time and there are always
objections from folks who are still not convinced it solves any problems
for them and who find it harder to work with for whatever reason.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: