Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:09:44PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
> non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5 to make it harder to
> maintain debian/copyright in DEP-5 format than as a free-form one,
It might be how its written. I don't have the background of the DEP-5
creation so have to read the spec as it is.
> > My suggestions:
> > * Split out the authors and the copyright dates into one chunk. The
> > fact that fileA is copyright 2005 Joe and fileB is copyright 2006
> > Fred and then fileC is copyright 2006 both of this is completely
> > irrelevant for most people, just that Joe and Fred have copyright
> > of some parts of the package is enough.
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2005-2006, Joe
> 2006, Fred
That means all files Fred worked on in 2006 and all files Joe worked on
in 2005 and 2006? You'll get yourself tangled up into some horrible
year X author matrix this way. I had a look at one of my packages, 400
files with 50 different copyright combinations.
Maybe Files: * needs clarification. The difference between 'all' and
'any'.
The interaction with authors and licenses causes the problem. It is
solvable though. Currently having copyright lines and license lines
mandatory for all files is what driving this.
I saw a suggestion that there could be a package copyright and authors.
That would simplify things. If a files stanza has no copyright or author
you use the package one, or the Files: all (or whatever, I dont care
about the syntax) information.
Yes, I agree it should be an option. If you want to list every file and
every author and license then it should be permitted.
I'm also interested in seeing how this pans out as the dh-make templates
will need updating.
- Craig
--
Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free
Reply to: