Bug#672701: partial review
Hi!
I'd suggest we keep this to the bugreport, no need to Cc mentors:
whoever is interested, can post to the bug.
I haven't reviewed the whole bug log yet, but one part caught my attention:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Shadura <bugzilla@tut.by> wrote:
>> > > * You should also consider using DEP5 for your copyright.
>
>> > May be or may not be needed. It's optional at this moment, so I
>> > don't use it widely (yet).
>
>> It's in the packaging manual, and it's been accepted. You should be
>> taking it more seriously. It's perhaps not a requirement, but it's a
>> good thing to have.
>
> It's been accepted but it wasn't promoted to thing which is required.
> I see no real reason to use it yet, at least here, sorry.
While it is, indeed, not required, a DEP5 copyright file has a number
of advantages, which, I believe, make it strongly desirable, and
worthy of spending effort converting to it.
On one hand, some sponsors prefer DEP5, and wouldn't spend time
looking at non-DEP5 sponsor requests (I'm one of these, see my other
reasons further along).
The main reason I prefer DEP5 is because it pretty much forces one to
look through the licenses and copythights THROUGHLY, which makes both
my job easier when reviewing, and the ftpmaster's job when they
process the package through NEW. Being machine-readable is a good
thing too, but the main selling point of DEP5 for me is its
granularity.
So many times I've seen copyrights and licenses missed in a
debian/copyright file, because one did not look further than the top
level LICENSE file... DEP5 makes one dig deeper. Of course, one can do
that without the format, but.. if you're going through it all
throughly, and documenting it anyway... might as well do so in a
format that's standardized in Debian Policy.
So I would strongly urge you to reconsider, and use DEP5. In the long
run, I believe it's worth the effort.
--
|8]
Reply to: