Re: upstream field in package description
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:31:27AM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> 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.
Not true. The copyright files are available on packages.debian.org.
> > 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!
What would yours not be ignored even more ?
> > 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
> information...
Homepage has the merit to be already implemented.
> > 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
> or
> 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.
You failed to identify a single point where Upstream-Source is better than
Homepage.
> That missing upstream information is really annoying!
That is no excuse.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: