Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Seconded with or without the following nit.
>> Minor wording nit: I would put a period after "obtained" and make the
>> next part a separate sentence. ("The copyright file should include a
>> name or contact address for the upstream authors.") Otherwise, it
>> could be read as saying that the copyright file can only omit the
>> upstream source information if the URL pointed to by Homepage includes
>> name or contact information, but (a) that's not the point of your
>> change, and (b) we want that contact information to always be in the
>> copyright file if available because upstream URLs tend to disappear.
> I don't think this is so minor!
> The paragraph says that the upstream contact information can just be a
> URL, and if it is, then I think it could be omitted in favour of the
> Homepage: field. It was deliberate that my addition applies to both the
> 'must' and the 'should' requirements.
> Do you disagree with this?
Well, it doesn't, exactly... it says that it can be a web forum or
bugtracker, but doesn't say anything about being a URL. Hm.
Something about this sits wrong with me, in that I feel like we should
capture the upstream contact information directly rather than relying on a
URL remaining present on the web. But I'm not sure it's that big of a
deal one way or the other, so I'm still okay with the wording you proposed
originally (and still second it).
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: