Re: draft packaging of calligra 2.9.5

[Adrien Grellier <perso@adrieng.fr>]

Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> 
> It is not about what you or me wants or "don't want" to do. Debian package
> has to have an accurate copyright file -- it is a requirement. Ftp-masters
> will laugh if I try to upload a package with copyright as inaccurate as
> calligra's and what will be my excuse? "I didn't want to do it, there are
> too many files"?!?

OK let me explain how I see the situation: We are using this way of 
generating the copyright for a couple of years now. The FTP masters may 
laugh, but they accepts calligra and its copyright.

This way of generating the copyright file has been documented, reviewed and 
improved by the Qt-KDE team over the years. Of course it's far from being 
perfect.

Then you came and explain it's just rubbish. But I didn't find any commit of 
you on the packaging of calligra before and you propose no improvement, 
except throwing everything out… Not very kind for us indeed.

And yes, it is a matter of what we want: If I had the time, calligra will be 
updated long ago. But I can't find the necessary time, like many others 
around. So I choose my combats. And clearly, improving the copyright is not 
my main combat. I think the copyright we have is a good compromise, and 
maybe other like Lisandro or Maximilliano thinks as well.

You mention some tricks… But maybe your tricks are just another way to have 
semi-automatic update of the copyright file? 

So now, if you find way to improvement, please share! I think the best is to 
document it in the README.source, because this file may stay longer than 
people, and it's much easier for beginners to start with.

Regards,

Adrien