Re: [DEP5] Asking for common wisdom on new field(s): References*
Hi Charles,
Thanks for the follow up.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I really think that this information should be in another file...
well, in general I do not mind; but yet 'another file' might introduce
more cons than pros
N.B. uff... and who is saying all these? the one who just recently
announced the existence of debian/blends [1]... pardon my blunt
beginning ;)
> Would you be interested in this approach ?
Well, I would adopt any approach really which would be somewhat
transparent and easy to use for us (debian maintainers):
* easy to embed existing references
* not necessary to duplicate information across multiple files
* maintain ability for 2 liner debian/rules ;)
and for the users:
* reference should be in 'ready to use' format and ideally readily
available (so no cp, or cut/paste necessary for each individual
reference)
* so may be we could even compile for them easily the
"Debian upstream references" bibliography
as a consequence, complete pipeline should avoid too much of
conversion, i.e.
COMMON_REFERENCE_FORMAT1 (used by upstream) -> UNIFIED_DEBIAN_FORMAT (used by us) -> COMMON_REFERENCE_FORMAT (used by users)
especially if there is an existing dominant
COMMON_REFERENCE_FORMAT1 == COMMON_REFERENCE_FORMAT2
should ideally be avoided
> packages in our archive that contain it in debian/reference, debian/references
> or debian/upstream-metadata.yaml.
please point me to the representative package so I could have a look,
especially for debian/upstream-metadata.yaml in regards to the
wishes stated above.
I have ran into samstools, but that one has bulk of things duplicated
among control and upstream-metadata.yaml, and upstream-metadata.yaml and
reference
> http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata
In general I like this idea, BUT unfortunately I do not see it being
complete without avoiding duplication of information... unless
automated...
Let me elaborate: due to the historical evolution of Debian
packaging we have already other files which one way or another do
contain 'UpstreamMetadata' -- control, copyright, watch are the most
"popular" ones. With DEP5 copyright gets even closer to the content of
upstream-metadata.yaml, (just use Maintainer for Contact, more vague
Remark for Donation). So what becomes left for upstream-metadata.yaml ?
seems to be primarily 'Reference's, which I logically placed into
existing copyright file (reasoning was included in original email why
this file is imho appropriate).
so... may be there should/could be
* minimalistic debian/upstream-metadata.yaml.in just extending
information from other files, not duplicating it
* helper which generates a 'complete' debian/upstream-metadata.yaml
and gets Ok'ed by Joey Hess to become a part of debhelper ;-)
uff... I guess I might have been already off-road... sorry ;) but
comments of cause are welcome and we could continue the discussion...
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-blends/2010/11/msg00020.html
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:39:16PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit :
> > Dear DEP5 Committee ;)
> > In the light of previous discussions [1] and the presentation of our little
> > effort at debconf10 [2, 3 for PDF], and now following your recommendation
> > I am RFCing for References* fields to be used in DEP5-formatted copyright
> > files. I foresee use of following fields:
> > References:
> > free-form paragraph describing the references [e.g. 4]
--
=------------------------------------------------------------------=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
Reply to: