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

Re: upstream field in package description

Es geschah am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2005 01:33 als Bill Allombert schrieb:
> 1) Debian Policy mandate the information in the copyright file already:
> 12.5. Copyright information
> ---------------------------
> ...
>      In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
>      (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original authors of the
>      package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were involved with its
>      creation.

Not sufficient IMO. Again; you need to download and/or install the package to 
get that information.

> 2) Developers-reference propose the following:
> 6.2.4. Upstream home page
> -------------------------
>      We recommend that you add the URL for the package's home page to the
>      package description in `debian/control'.  This information should be
>      added at the end of description, using the following format:
>            .
>             Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/

The 'good' thing about recommendations is that they can be ignored so easily 
and in this case this specific recommendation is ignored by the majority of 
all Debian packages!

> 3) Information about upstream website tend to get outdated, so stable
> packages are likely to include outdated informations.

Right, upstream websites get outdated and so do packages. Better a pointer to 
an old webpage than none at all. This is not an argument for me at all!

> The Developers-reference proposal allow a stable user to go to
> package.debian.org to read the description of the unstable version of
> the package and get a more up-to-date information.

... where he could also read a "Upstream-Source: " field generated 

> 4) Some upstream authors do not want their email address to be exposed.
> To their defense, someone buying the getithere.org domain might be
> surprised to receive spams addressed to the foocrew user.

Upstream-Source: neglected
Upstream-Source: undesired
or even
Upstream-Author: restricted

or whatever. All those contra arguments depend on a clear minority of packages 
and as you can see can still live with my proposal. That missing upstream 
information is really annoying!

I hope you guys change your mind!


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

Reply to: