On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:14:01AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.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. Erm... and what would Joey Hess put there for a native package, where the *source* is obtained from, well, the Debian archive? :) > > (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. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev email@example.com roam@FreeBSD.org firstname.lastname@example.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 This sentence contains exactly threee erors.
Description: Digital signature