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

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

Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:56:17AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> 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.

I also dislike this sentence, but it is in the current DEP, so I thought it is
out of scope to remove it with the patch I proposed. However, I moved the
reference to the Policy above that part, to better avoid misunderstanding.
Anyhow, I fully support removal of the whole sentence.



Reply to: