Re: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1
Le Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 01:18:20PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> > From a parser point of view, this requirement cannot be verified unless
> > there's a way to know if a package is native or not.
> True, but unavoidable. The alternative is to not make the field required
> under *any* circumstances; but this information is required by Policy
> anyway, so making it optional in the format doesn't really affect anything.
I also agree that making Source optional in the format would not affect
the DEP. I like the idea to take the parser point of view when describing
if a field is required or optional. After all, it is the Policy itself that
determines what has to be documented in debian/copyright, and the purpose
of the DEP is how to make it machine-readable. Tasks are well separated.
Therefore, how about:
@@ -149,17 +149,15 @@ in `debian/control` files.
will usually be written as a list of RFC5322 addresses or URIs.
- * Required, unless there is no upstream
+ * 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.
- This field is mandatory, unless there are no upstream sources,
- which is mainly the case for native Debian packages.
- See [Debian Policy,
- for details.
+ Typically this would be a URL, but it might be a free-form explanation.
+ The [Debian Policy, 12.5](http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile)
+ requires this information unless there are no upstream sources,
+ which is mainly the case for native Debian packages. If the upstream
+ source has been modified to remove non-free parts, that should be
+ explained in this field.
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan