Re: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1
Le Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:56:16AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 03:20:37AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > and it's ok by Policy, then I'd be happy to apply a patch someone
> > provides. :)
> Index: dep5.mdwn
> --- dep5.mdwn (revision 157)
> +++ dep5.mdwn (working copy)
> @@ -149,12 +149,14 @@
> will usually be written as a list of RFC5822 addresses or URIs.
> * **`Source`**
> - * Required
> + * Optional
> * Syntax: formatted text, no synopsis
> * An explanation from where the upstream source came from.
> Typically this would be a URL, but it might be a free-form
> explanation. If the upstream source has been modified to remove
> - non-free parts, that should be explained in this field.
> + non-free parts, that should be explained in this field. This field
> + is mandatory for non-native Debian packages; it can be omitted for
> + native Debian packages.
> * **`Disclaimer`**
> * Optional
I would recommend to stick to Policy's words: if there is no upstream sources,
the field is not required.
The problem with ‘native packages’ is that it induces confusion with packages
using a dpkg native source format, like sbackup or ikiwiki, whose purpose,
homepage or VCS are as upstream to Debian as most other programs packaged with
a non-native format.
Also, from a parser point of view, there is a flaw: the parser can not know
whether there exists an upstream source or not, and therefore in the absence of
a Source field it can not accurately validate the machine-readable copyright
So while I support modifying the DEP now, I think that we should also follow up
the question in the Policy, especially if there is a general feeling that since
there a Homepage field in debian/control, it is not necessary anymore to make
it mandatory to record a similar information in debian/copyright.
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan