On Saturday, November 9, 2019 9:07:39 AM EST gregor herrmann wrote: > 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. I'd like to suggest thinking about this from the perspective of new contributors. Copyright-format 1.0 has a lot of specific requirements. Do we really want to recommend that before someone can package software for Debian they need to learn this too (hint: I think no - there's plenty to learn to get started that's actually necessary). I started learning Debian packaging in 2007. Looking back at all the complexity we've added since, I'm not completely sure if I were approaching it new today I wouldn't throw up my hands and declare it too complicated. I believe we should be really careful about raising barriers to entry and pushing too hard on copyright-format 1.0 would be one that is totally uneeded. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.