Re: Usage of DEP5
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 09:49:26PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 07.11.2019, 13:40 +0000 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
>
> [snip]
> > 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.
>
> Why is a machine-readable debian/copyright (DEP5, accepted) mixed with
> debian/upstream/metadata (DEP12, just a draft) here?
>
> debian/upstream/metadata is completely optional. This draft has not even been
> accepted yet. I see heavy issues making this mandatory. It contains almost only
> non-packaging relevant information, which is not really necessary to provide
> that package. And the data contained can change at any time.
The connection is that I was arguing that fields that are in DEP5 should
not be in DEP12. Those who refuse to use DEP5 might like to put that
into DEP12 (see my first mail in this thread about the Wiki change[1]).
I basically started the thread here since I disagree. To say it
clearly: If you want to ship the information that is shiped in DEP5 you
should use DEP5. Sticking to the old copyright format and sneaking in
the information "somewhere else" does not make any sense to me.
> But if we don't ship the projects license(s) files, debian/copyright IS
> mandatory. JFTR: I don't understand why a formalized format of debian/copyright
> is that hard to realize.
+1
I could understand "I don't have time"-like excuses. I have not seen
any example yet, that would be hard to re-phrase as valid copyright
format 1.0.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/11/msg00096.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: