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

Re: DEP5: non-DFSG repackaging documentation

On ti, 2010-09-14 at 17:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> > Makes sense to me.
> > Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
> > I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source not
> > being "pristine" in the sense that the form as redistributed by Debian is
> > different from how it was distributed by upstream.
> > With this I mean that it should *both* cover cases of repackaging a
> > tarball *and* generating a tarball from e.g. a checkout from an upstream
> > VCS.
> > Suggested filed name:
> >  Source-Repackaged-Reason:
> We already have a field for this purpose, namely Source.  The only reason
> why we can't use it is because it's currently only allowed to contain
> URLs.  So what about, instead, broadening the syntax of Source to say that
> it contains *either* a space-separated list of URLs for the simple case of
> reusing an upstream release tarball available from some URL *or* freeform
> text describing where the source came from.
> I don't think it's horribly important that the URLs in Source be
> machine-extractable, since that purpose is already served well by
> debian/watch.  The field is primarily meant for humans anyway.

Good point about debian/watch.

The simplest proposal right now is to make the Source field free-form
text, and since I like simplicity, I support this. More detailed
specification for documenting mechanical rules of transformations could
wait until there's real experience of using this spec in the real world
for this.

Anyone opposed?

Reply to: