On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 18:09:16 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Julien Cristau wrote:FWIW I disagree with this change, I don't think making a new requirement for source packages is the way to solve NEW review workflow.Oh, lintian already complains about a missing debian/copyright in the source package. So this change is not a new requirement but is only meant as a clarification.lintian only emits a warning. Which is IMO perfectly OK to ignore.
But policy says that there "should" be such a copyright file. Violating such a clause is at least an important bug. As a maintainer you only need to take care of serious bugs, so of course you can ignore it ...
From my point of view this is still a bad thing. In any case you have tocollect all information for the binary package. Doing this during binary package building, means that all buildds have to do this (maybe even different versions for each package). Wouldn't it make more sense to build it only once and put it in the source package?
Strictly speaking, while checking the copyright file of a binary package,one has to determine first what files from the source package are needed to create that binary package. I am not sure whether this can be done reliable with any automatism. So it adds another manual step to the NEW
review.Further, up to now most packages have this debian/copyright. So processing such packages is more or less routine. Any disturbance of this routine means that processing needs more time ...
Thorsten