On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > I wonder whether you have further files in mind which should end up in > debian/upstream/ dir. Could your please give some reasons why you > dropped the previously used location, debian/upstream-signing-key.pgp,
Quoting my initial email in this thread: Part of the reason I chose to use debian/upstream/ is that an extensible location for upstream related information (similar in spirit to debian/source/) could be useful. I received the suggestion from multiple people to use this directory, presumably for the same reason, which reinforced my existing inclination to do so. > in favour of introducing a directory which even conflicts with some > other file name which is discussed in a DEP-12 without minding any > discussion. Quoting my initial email in this thread: I also was unaware of (or had forgotten about) DEP-12's existing use of debian/upstream, which was appropriated around 01/2012 as the new name for debian/upstream-metadata.yaml. > IMHO, it is simply not the right way to to a grab into the > name space without dicussion and creating work for your fellow DDs by > doing so. Please do not ascribe malice to something that happened out of ignorance. Simply because I wasn't aware of DEP-12's usage of debian/upstream, nor had encountered its use anywhere in the past two years, does not mean that I intentionally caused this conflict. If I had known of it, I would have started a discussion. > For instance: Do you plan to move the debian/watch file to > debian/upstream/ dir as well (or not and if not why not?) I think it would be appropriate to move it there, yes. I haven't made any changes in that direction yet because I'd like this discussion to finalize first. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:15:33AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Help is welcome but just helping is not enough. Just helping would be for > instance to migrate 50 packages over 300, and tell us to do the rest. This > would be worse than doing nothing. > … > I personally find peoples attitudes quite brutally top-down confrontational. > Just because you maintain devscripts or dpkg does not mean that you decide how > others spend their time. > … > A: Hey, I sent you a trivial patch to > s|debian/upstream|debian/upstream/metadata|. > B: Thanks, but please do the full migration yourself. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to do work towards what I thought you had agreed was an amenable solution as long as someone does the work. Having debian/upstream be a directory is something I think is worthwhile to work toward, which is why I said I would do that. However, I'm ignorant of the existing uses of debian/upstream. Andreas mentioned the udd gatherer as something that would need changes if there were to be a transition. I therefore provided a patch spcifically to honor both the existing path and the proposed path so that the transition doesn't have to be immediate. I've stated from the start that I would work on a transition, but without knowledge of what needs to be transitioned (which I'm assuming you and Andreas have) it's not easy to do that. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <james...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
