Re: Usage of DEP5
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 4:16 PM Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 9, 2019 3:05:21 PM EST Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
> > > 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 am surprised here, since I would recommend exactly the opposite: For a
> > beginner, a well-structured format is much better to fill in than a "The
> > copyright must be somehow documented in d/copyright".
> >
> > CF1.0 helps since it makes clear which information to put there, one
> > doesn't have to think about the structure etc. Especially with the help
> > of the sponsor.
> >
> > Following magic rules really helps starting to contribute.
>
> I think there are enough "Oh, you missed a colon here, please fix and I'll
> review again" in Debian packaging without adding more. Fundamentally,
> copyright-format 1.0 adds a pile of possible things to get wrong that are
> actually in no way relevant to the purpose of debian/copyright. Focusing on
> form over function isn't the first thing contributors need to learn.
Sorry to be a jerk. And sorry to go off-topic. But…
I feel like new contributors are discouraged by the inconsistent and
sometimes overly formal copyright documentation rejection criteria.
For instance, the first point mentioned in the ftpmaster rejection
email is a rejection for not specifying the license of autotools
cruft. The packager (who is neither a DD nor a DM) has told me that
they feel like they might as well switch the buildsystem to meson, not
necessarily because of any technical build improvements, but primarily
to make it easier to appease the ftpmasters.
It does not feel right to me that packages that use Copyright Format
1.0 are held to a **higher** standard than packages that don't.
I personally have spent many hours working on a singler package that
was required for GNOME to work (mozjs38) just to try to build a
complete enough d/copyright file to clear the NEW queue. And I am an
experienced packager.
[1] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-ayatana-devel/2019-September/002438.html
Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
Reply to: