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

Bug#502923: developers-reference: Add new Upstream-* fields for Bts, Upstream-Vcs-Browser, Upstream-Vcs-{Git, Hg, Svn) ...

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
> > Indeed, and this is wasted time when the person filing the bug could have
> > gone to the CRMI website and filled the infos by himself.
> When would you estimate that it would be a reality? The page is dated
> 2006-05-27.

No idea. I don't know anyone working on that. In the mean time we have
Mole (http://wiki.debian.org/Mole) and Ultimate Debian Database
(http://wiki.debian.org/UltimateDebianDatabase) that appeared and that
should be taken into account too.

The CRMI was a proposal discussed at debconf and proposed by myself as
part of my work in the QA team and related to my experience with the PTS.
But then I lost interest in coding it but I'm still convinced that we need
something like that.

> Doesn't the CRMI contradict with the more recent proposal, which aims
> to bring the meta information to debian/copyright?
>    http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat [*]

Well copyright info has to stay in the package for obvious reasons…
standardizing that information only gives benefits.

> > the data collected would be transparently used by other applications,
> > the website is mainly meant to update data not to consult it.
> I would say that the information is consulted more easily daily basis by
> using:
>     apt-get
>     aptitude
>     sunaptic

Right. And the PTS and packages.debian.org.

> Looking at [*] more, this shows tendency to prefer meta-information
> inside the package instead of external CRMI. I think this bug's proposal
> belongs there. I've just updated the [*] page.

And you got the same answer there (by NoahSlater): it doesn't look right
to put that information in the copyright file either.

Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Reply to: