Am Donnerstag, den 29.05.2008, 13:18 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > On Wed, 28 May 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote: > > 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. OK. False impression or whatever, we will correct that. Thanks for clarifying! > > 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? Yes, the "must" is probably too strong and I can't really say why I choose it. (Anyway, I always thought it to be less strong then "has to", not like the German "muss", somehow more than "may" (German: "darf"). I may be wrong, though.) We can lower it to a "should". Of course we have no means to enforce anything. > 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). Full ACK. And there is no Lintian warning because it is a *proposed* format. > So in short: If we write "must" we should be clear about the consequences > if a package fails this requirement. Indeed. I hope that is the only "must" I forgot about. :) I will probably include all proposed changes this evening. I will send a patch to d-s-maintainers for review before I commit it to the repo. I'd encourage everyone interested in packaging work to subscribe to the list if not already done so. Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil