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

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

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:44:03AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
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 agree with your proposal to change it to "Optional" instead of the oddball "sometimes optional".

I do not, however, agree with sneaking in additional requirements in that field:

+     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.

In previous discussions we decided, I believe, to *not* decide on specific handling of source removal.

Personally I want for a later release of DEP-5 to handle this using multiple optional Source-Removed: + Comment: sections.

Your proposed patch makes it mandatory to mention in Source: and would thus force me to either violate current DEP5 or duplicate data.

Please leave out that sentence until we have properly discussed how to officially handle stripped source.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: