On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:18:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:40:34AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Having a mantadory Files: field was strongly opposed on debian-devel > > AFAIK the opposition was from people who opposed the machine-readable > copyright format altogether, not from people who are planning to use the > format and are looking to improve it. The DEP should not cater to the whims > of people who aren't going to use it anyway.
On the other hand, the DEP should make it possible for more people to use it, not make it impossible. Basically, having the Files field mandatory means no big package will ever use it. Ask Gustavo Noronha how fun it is, and how long it takes to update the debian/copyright file for webkit at each new upstream release, which is only medium sized. Not only is it not fun and time sucking, but it is also very error-prone. I'm pretty sure I involuntary introduced errors when I was still maintaining that file, which are probably still out there. And while software like fossology could help a lot, they still leave a massive amount of manual work to be done. Let's also add something I pointed out last time: the debian/copyright file is mostly relevant for *binary* packages, yet, we fill copyright for *source* files and provide no information for *binary* files at all, while having a machine-parseable copyright has, IMHO, a more interesting benefit for binaries than it has for sources (especially sources of big packages). But I admit gathering these informations together would mean even more work than what copyright files require already. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
