Hello, On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 06:20PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > I would have expected to find this information in debian/copyright. The > Source field there sometimes names an upstream VCS but isn't required to > do so; I'd be in favor of some tightening of the requirements in > copyright-format based on how packages in the archive have been using > the field (for example, encouraging a list of lines each of which has > the same format as Vcs-* fields). Yes, I too use the Source field to point to the git repository if that URL is both accessible in a web browser and cloneable with git without any modification. I doubt we have enough consistency in the archive to standardise, though. > On this subject more generally, I think there's a bit of a > chicken-and-egg problem. If we want new fields in the Packages or > Sources file, it does make sense to coordinate a little with potential > consumers, and it's not obvious to me where the right place to start > that is (dpkg@packages.debian.org? a DEP? something else?). So I > understand why people ask policy team. > > For the future, I'd like to have good advice to offer for this kind of > case, even if that advice is as simple as "ask dpkg@packages.debian.org" > or "ask ftp-master", say. Indeed, it would be nice to have this. I think though that the answer might be too complicated to write down. The consumers of the field is going to be different for each proposed new field. It's probably fine for discussions to start here and then we can reassign the bugs when we figure out who the consumers are. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature