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

Re: upstream field in package description

Es geschah am Freitag 13 Mai 2005 22:15 als Adeodato Simó schrieb:
> * Christian Schoenebeck [Fri, 13 May 2005 21:41:46 +0200]:
> > IMO at least the upstream source field should become mandatory for Debian
> > packages in future. On some packages it's really not that easy to trace
> > back the original upstream source, because not every maintainer is adding
> > that to the copyright or README.Debian file.
> >
> > What do you think?
>   That if a package does not contain those two bits of information in
>   the copyright file (author and where to get the source), you should
>   file a serious bug against the package, since the Debian Policy §12.5
>   mandates that such information must be present.
> > I would like to ask for adding a new field to Debian package descriptions
> > which defines the upstream source of a package, that is the location
> > where the original sources were downloaded and probably optional as
> > another field the upstream authors, like:
> >
> > Upstream-Source: http://www.getithere.org
> > Upstream-Author: Foo Crew <foocrew@getithere.org>
>   Hence no need for this, its place is not the description but the
>   copyright file, already.

I just faced another big point for the proposal of forcing an upstream field 
in package descriptions in future policies; you have to download and install 
the respective package. 

E.g. I just wanted to see some screenshots of "sketch" a vector drawing 
application. I would have to install it to get the upstream URL.

Even if there are packages which do not have an upstream URL (which are the 
absolute minory), then they could still simply provide something like:

 Upstream-Source: none

or whatever.

I really think this a very bad policy situation!


P.S. please CC me, I'm offlist!

Reply to: