On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit :I don't think, for instance, that a file that has a declaration of Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/  should have 'Maintainer' fields auto-upgraded to 'Upstream-Contact', but that this should instead be treated as an unknown field.Like others, the history of this parameter is complicated. It was required, then deprecated, and now legal (but with a possibly different semantic content). If you factor in the possibility of human error (e.g. modern format, but forgotten Maintainer field), having a DEP-5 validated file may not mean much.For instance, this DEP-5 file is valid, since Maintainer field is accepted as an unknown parameter and Upstream-Contact is optional:Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ Maintainer: foo@bar Files: * Copyright: (c) me License: GPL-2+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it [snip] In this case, is this an error or a DD who does not like the Upstream-Contact keyword ?
How about emit a warning in unknown-but-likely-error cases like this. ...and perhaps _optionally_ be invasive as is now the default. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature