Re: Debian Science Policy: First draft online and open for discussion
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
a first draft of the Debian Science Policy is now available in the Debian
Science repository and can be checked out with:
git clone git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/policy.git
Now I was able to read the proposal:
A list of packages has been created by the Debian-Med project. Their website
contains a long list of software packages in Debian and yet to be packaged.
Wrong. ;-)
Well, I know that the web page contains the string "Debian-Med" but this
is rather a bug than a feature. I'm just not finished with the rewrite
of the scripts and the goal is for sure to mention the correct CDD. Even
if I have done a lot of the work (besides David Paleino who deserves the
honor of making it happen at all) I was jus wearing my general CDD hut.
BTW, the procedure, how to (re)create this index is described at
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Extremadura2008/WebSentinelHowto
And it is also not *their* website it is the CDD web site which might
either be moved to debian-science.what.ever or stay there under
http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science
which I'd regard not really wrong.
debian/copyright
The machine-readable format must be used.
I guess we had this item in the thread before. I just want to mention
one additional aspect: If we write "must" at any place, we should be
aware that "must" implicites some means we have to enforce this
requirement. Do we really have such means. For instance would we
remove the repository of a package if it hits the archive? Is it
a bug of the package if it has no machine readable copyright (we
only have a means to enforce if the bug has RC severity)? Does
somebody volunteer to rewrite copyright files and check them in?
So yes, I would _really_, _really_ want to have this realised but
feel free to blame me for checking in packages that do not yet fullfill
this requirement. Yes, I will port the copyright sooner or later and
I regard this of some importance - but other bugs are more important
and there is not even a lintian warning about non-machine readable
copyright files (at least I did not realised).
So in short: If we write "must" we should be clear about the consequences
if a package fails this requirement.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: