Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes: > Native packages tend to have no upstream sources, so for most of the > 200 or so native packages that I am involved in, I have no such thing > in copyright, and I think that policy allows that. Anything I can > think of to put in the source field seems redundant or pointless > boilerplate -- which I'd rather avoid having in the 200-odd native > packages I am involved with in Debian. Why is it redundant? The copyright file is the canonical place for that information, from what I can tell. That's my understanding of why it's required (by Policy and by the DEP-5 format) to record it there. > (Of course, the Source field is also redundant for a great many > packages where it would be the same URL that goes in debian/control's > Homepage field. IIRC, the hope is that policy is eventually changed to > not require the copyright have that redundant information.) I disagree on that point. The home page of the project is a different fact from the description of where the source was obtained. If they happen to be the same, that doesn't obviate recording both facts. -- \ “That's the essence of science: Ask an impertinent question, | `\ and you're on the way to the pertinent answer.” —Jacob | _o__) Bronowski, _The Ascent of Man_, 1973 | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgptwhwhpEKOK.pgp
Description: PGP signature