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

Re: Bug#762228: RFS: ufoai-music review



On 2014-09-20 13:23, Markus Koschany wrote:
> On 20.09.2014 10:10, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> On 2014-09-20 01:22, Markus Koschany wrote:
>>> The debian/copyright file is identical for ufoai-data, ufoai-music and
>>> ufoai-maps.
>>
>> I find this somewhat confusing.
>>
>> Generally speaking, I don't believe that listing the copyright of files
>> which are not part of the source package (in fact, which are part of
>> another package) is policy-conform, regardless of whether upstream
>> created the source split, or you.
>> But specifically, imagine I fork the ufoai package to create my own
>> modded version, and imagine I think the music is fine so I just depend
>> on that package instead of forking that one, too. The music package
>> would then, in its copyright, list incorrect information, as through my
>> fork, the copyright of some of the other files would have changed.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand your objection. debian/copyright provides all
> copyright information that you need for the music files in a
> machine-readable format. Did you have a look at the copyright file? What
> information do you think is missing?

Nobody said anything about missing information. It's about superfluous
information. This is inaccurate, at best, and I gave a concrete example
where this might be a problem.

>> Why not simply modify this script to generate 4 copyright files instead
>> of 1 (one for each source package)? For example, if the music is in a
>> subdirectory, you can split by that.
> 
> Yes, you could write even more code to parse nearly 7000 files until
> everyone is satisfied. The question is whether the copyright file is
> Policy compliant already and with the information provided, I think it is.

I did not suggest that. I suggested that instead of writing output to
one one file, your write your output to four.

You're already parsing upstream's LICENSES file in ufoai_copyright.py
and processing it line-by-line, so something as simple as the following
might suffice:

if a_list[0].startswith('base/music'):
   # Do ufoai-music specific output stuff
elif ...
   ...

>>> It also comes with the advantage that all files are machine-readable
>>> now. Thus wildcards, except for the Files: * paragraph, aren't
>>> necessary and the whole copyright information are more precise.
>>
>> If you have a directory base/textures/tex_trak/, and all the files in
>> there were created by the same author, then listing them individually
>> or using the "*" glob pattern convey exactly the same amount of
>> information, but using "*" makes the file far more (human-)readable.
> 
> Debian's copyright format 1.0 is well defined. This is one of the rare
> occasions where you benefit from upstream's careful handling of license
> information and a machine-readable format that makes the accuracy
> visible and in addition it saves time to write d/copyright. There is no
> need for glob patterns if you have a convenient way to reproduce the
> result of the script.

Again, you are ignoring my argument. I said "using * makes the file far
more (human-)readable". MRCF 1.0 just specifies that the format is
*also* machine-readable, but I'm quite sure that the majority of
consumers of debian/copyright are still humans. In the example I gave,
using glob patterns produces the exact same result from a machine's POV,
but a significantly better result from a human's POV.



Reply to: