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