Re: Usage of DEP5
Andreas Tille dixit:
>explicit wish to not use DEP5. I wonder what other reasons might exist
>to explicitly stick to the non-machine readable format.
I prefer human-readable format. I also often deal in software which
has more… flexibility than the DEP 5 format allows, or where it is
plain simpler.
To make it clear, I also have packages with machine-readable format,
it’s not general but case-by-case, whichever suits better for the
situation.
The machine-readable format applies to the source tree, not the
binary packages, though, which makes it hard to impossible to map
some real-world scenatios involving heterogenous licences (differing
between binary packages, or different licences chosen of dual-licences,
or different binary package content depending on… things).
I have no problem with it in general, as long as it’s not forced.
It’s clearly a 90%+ solution, not a 100% solution.
If forcing machine-readable copyright is required for UMEGAYA,
then I’m sorry to say I will be removing debian/upstream/metadata
from some of my packages rather.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
<diogenese> Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it.
<igli> yeah but it means if you really care about something, don't
ritualise it, or you will lose it. don't fetishise it, don't
obsess. or you'll forget why you love it in the first place.
Reply to: