Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:12:54AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Bart Martens wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > Bart Martens wrote:
> > > > The file debian/copyright "should name the original authors", and
> > > > David Keppel is such an author.
>
> I have looked through many copyright files and do not see one that
> does this. See for example this one along with many others:
>
> /usr/share/doc/gawk/copyright
>
> Of course that doesn't mean there aren't others that do. I would
> welcome an example to follow. I just haven't found any.
I don't know any example in DEP5 or copyright-format/1.0.
> Nor does it
> mean that it isn't the right thing to do.
Maybe the outcome of bug 678607 will be to no longer list the authors.
> Although philosophically I
> am not sure of the need for it since anyone looking for authors would
> look in the AUTHORS file which is the canonical location for that
> information, at least for GNU programs.
I agree with that.
>
> > > Thank you for taking the time to look at the copyright file in detail.
> > > I admit the new DEP5 format confuses me.
> >
> > Me too.
>
> :-)
>
> > > Where would I find such a statement in the documentation?
>
> To answer my own question it is stated here:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
>
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
> (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors.
>
> So definitely stated by Policy the original authors must be named.
Yes.
>
> > > How would this be defined in the file? How would we comply with
> > > that statement within the restrictions of the above documentation?
> >
> > No idea.
>
> After doing more research and without any other input I think the only
> thing that makes sense is to include the information in the free-form
> Comment: block.
Seems OK to me.
> I don't find any other packages doing this (would
> welcome an example)
I don't know any example in DEP5 or copyright-format/1.0.
> but it would definitely seem to be required by the
> spirit of Policy 12.5
Yes.
> and there doesn't seem to be any other place to
> put it in the DEP5 format.
No idea.
>
> > > The copyright holder is of course the FSF. That is the copyright
> > > statement listed in each of the files.
> > >
> > > Should I list the original authors in a Comment: field? I see no
> > > other way. Help!
> >
> > No idea.
>
> I think putting this in a Comment: field about the only acceptable
> solution that I can see that meets all of the (conflicting)
> requirements.
It would conform to debian-policy.
>
> > Note that DEP5 is not mandatory. Plain text is OK for policy. What motivated
> > you to switch to DEP5 ?
>
> There are several facets. First is that since the package needs to be
> sponsored it means that every sponsor will have their own pet peeves
> and requests. Generally this means that everything must be of the
> newest features. You never know what a sponsor will ask for. (Or
> sometimes it must be of an older feature!)
I understand that it is not easy for package maintainers to deal with different
sponsoring styles.
> DEP5 is one of Debian's
> new features and therefore to get a package through sponsorship it
> pretty much needs to have it.
DEP5 is not required for packages I sponsor, although I don't mind that DEP5 is
used. The package maintainer can choose, in my opinion. I find plain text
format much easier for everyone, but it's not my choice to make.
> See for example the request to move to
> quilt instead of using the previous diff.gz format.
I don't remember asking that. I guess someone else asked that.
> Also the request
> to use the newest compat level which arrived during the updating of
> this package.
I don't remember asking that. I guess someone else asked that.
> Before Sandro offerred to help I had started
> conversations with two other DDs for this package. Since I am
> completely at the mercy of a sponsor when they say jump I can only ask
> how high and try my best to comply.
I understand that it is not easy for package maintainers to deal with different
sponsoring styles.
> Although there was no specific
> request for DEP5 there were requests to update the copyright file.
Yes, I remember things I said about completing the copyright file. :-)
>
> And secondly in the maintainers guide it specifically calls out DEP5
> format.
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html
> 4.2. copyright
> This file contains information about the copyright and license of the
> upstream sources. Debian Policy Manual, 12.5 "Copyright information"
> dictates its content and DEP-5: Machine-parseable debian/copyright
> provides guidelines for its format.
Thanks for quoting that.
>
> I didn't read "Policy 12.5.1 Machine-readable copyright information"
> which states that the format is optional until just now. I didn't
> realize it was optional.
It is easy to overlook such parts in the documentation. So much to read.
> And therefore I was and have been giving it
> my best shot.
That is obviously good.
> Thanks for all of your help!
My pleasure.
Back to the "time" package itself. Is this your newest version of "time" you
are requesting sponsorship for ? Or do you want to update it first ?
http://www.proulx.com/~bob/debian/pool/sid/main/time/2012-06-22/time_1.7-24.dsc
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: