On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:40:28 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Some remarks: > 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. - It's called "Copyright Format 1.0" since a couple of years, DEP5 was during the development state. - Personally I find d/copyright files in CF 1.0 much more readable than free-form prose where I have to find the relevant information somewhere instead of having it stand out. Maybe that makes me a machine :) or maybe "maching-readable" is not the best characterization of CF 1.0 Anyway: > 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. This sounds like a very good compromise to me. Lately we as a project, guided by the DPL, have been in recommendation mode anyway: "Use dh(1) unless you have a reason not to", "Use git(1) and salsa unless …". I think "Write d/copyright in Copyright-Format 1.0 unless you have a specific reason not to do this for a specific package" would be a good continuation of this streak. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Eric Clapton: Cocaine
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature