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

Re: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1

Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:14:01AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > 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? :)

Simply record that fact. Something like “Native Debian package” would
do, I suppose.

As I understand it, the copyright file is the canonical location to
refer to for the provenance of the source for the package. So it doesn't
seem redundant to be explicit about that in the copyright file.

Some might argue that this can be inferred from the version string. But
that doesn't address the “canonical location for describing the
provenance” point.

Relying on inference from the version string also doesn't address the
cases where the package is *now* native to Debian, but was not always so
(i.e. a version string for a Debian native package might still have its
provenance from outside Debian). So regardless of the version string,
it's still not clear what the provenance of a package's source is unless
it's recorded explicitly.

 \        “The difference between religions and cults is determined by |
  `\                      how much real estate is owned.” —Frank Zappa |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpUQGQBiXHAz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: