[Bringing back on-list as I'd like more opinions]
-=| David Bremner, Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:08:18PM +0100 |=-
> >>>>> "Damyan" == Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org> writes:
>
> Damyan> Sorry for giving all this in a
> Damyan> "teaspoonfull-a-day" fashion. Thing is, when I review a
> Damyan> package I often note different things. I know this is not
> Damyan> perfect and could be rather irritating :/
>
> Hah, no irritation here. That is what version control is for. Anyway,
> in revenge, I switched to the new copyright format, so now you
> probably have new suggestions :-).
Since I am quite new to new format, and since this is a NEW package, I'd
like to ask the other members whether the "AUTHOR" section is still
necessary.
It is missing in the proposal[1], presumably replaced by the Copyright
fields. We already have one package in the new format in the archive,
libdbix-searchbuilder-perl, but:
a) it didn't go through NEW
b) it includes an Upstream authors section
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
I tend to prefer to keep that section as it is used not only for
©-holders but also to mention the persons that actually wrote/contribute
the software. The proposal allows for arbitrary free text to be present
in the file.
> Damyan> 1) Please note the date of initial packaging in the second
> Damyan> sentence. Yes, this can be retreived from
> Damyan> debian/changelog, but the purpose of debian/copyright is
> Damyan> to gather all this information in one single place.
>
> With the new format, is "originally packaged on <date> using
> dh-make-perl" still required/useful?
I guess not, as there's explicit statement about debian/* copyright.
--
dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature