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

Re: Usage of DEP5




On November 8, 2019 6:29:05 PM UTC, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 at 10:51:45 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> DEP-5 is the fastest way to write a d/copyright in some cases, but in
>> others it is not.  Part of this is that DEP-5 somewhat encourages
>people
>> to include more detail than is needed.
>
>It would probably help if we had more clarity around what is needed: at
>the moment the only way to know what is required is to upload to NEW
>and
>see whether the package is accepted. Maintainers don't want their
>packages
>to get additional delays from NEW rejection, so they have to err on the
>side of including everything that the ftp team might possibly require.
>
>Omitting the license grant (#904729, which is blocked on ftp team
>feedback) would be one good way to reduce the amount of boilerplate
>we're pasting into the copyright file.
>
>If the per-file copyright information is something that is encouraged
>by DEP-5 but not strictly needed: perhaps it would be viable to
>suggest,
>or even encourage, changing this:
>
>    Format: imagine the correct URL is here
>
>    Files: a.c a.h aaa.c
>    Copyright: 2019 Aaron Aaronson
>    License: AAA
>
>    Files: b.c
>    Copyright: 2019 Belinda Bloggs
>    License: BBB
>
>    Files: c/h
>    Copyright:
>     2010-2018 Aaron Aaronson
>     2016 Chris Cross
>    License: CCC
>
>    License: AAA
>     You may do some things
>
>    License: BBB
>     You may do some other things
>
>    License: CCC
>     You may do different things
>
>into this less precise form?
>
>    Format: imagine the correct URL is here
>    Copyright:
>     2010-2019 Aaron Aaronson
>     2019 Belinda Bloggs
>     2016 Chris Cross
>    License: AAA and BBB and CCC
>
>    License: AAA
>     You may do some things
>
>    License: BBB
>     You may do some other things
>
>    License: CCC
>     You may do different things
>
>(I haven't re-read the copyright format spec recently, so I don't know
>whether the spec actually allows this, and I don't know whether Lintian
>warns about it - but I feel as though it ought to be allowed.)
>
>> I think we should be optimising for reduced contributor time spent on
>> this task.
>
>I agree, but there's a limit to how far we can move in that direction
>without the ftp team clarifying their requirements.

I know for certain that the FTP Team has no requirements to use (or not) the DEP-5 format.  What the FTP Team needs is pretty orthogonal to using (or not) DEP-5.

Scott K


Reply to: