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

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

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:33:46PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes:

> > On to, 2011-01-13 at 17:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Yeah, I think Source should be optional for native packages.

> > Would anyone oppose making such a change?

> I maintain the position I argued earlier in this same thread:

> The provenance of the source of any Debian package should be recorded
> explicitly, and the copyright file is the canonical location for that
> information.

This is not what Debian Policy as written requires, and it's not appropriate
to use a rider in a DEP to bypass the policy process for changing those
requirements.  Policy only specifies documenting *upstream sources*.

> For packages where “it was only ever a Debian native package” is true,
> that fact is not obvious and should still be recorded in the same place.

This is makework.

I agree with Joey and Russ that the Source field should not be mandatory
under DEP5.  It's fine for tools that enforce Policy (such as lintian) to
treat a missing Source field as an error on a non-native package, OTOH.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: