Le Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont a écrit : > > Config::Model was designed to handle configuration files where the concept of > unknown parameter does not apply.
Dear Dominique, I think that it is completely fine. There is no guarantee that an extra field is used consistently across all the machine-readable copyright files. I think that they should simply propagated without modification. If package maintainers would like to use debian/copyright to vehiculate extra information, I think that it is their responsiblity to do it right as it is not a requirement from the Policy and currently there is no plan to harvest that data on a project-wide manner. If a revision of the format would bless a popular extra field into an optional or required field, a parser performing an upgrade could simply issue a warning when it detects that it was already present in the previous version. This gives a maximum of flexibility. If we make a barrier to the addition of extra fields, I think that it will send the wrong message to the developers who would like to explore evolutions on the use of debian/copyright. Lastly, I do not think that it is necessary to provide an automated upgrade facility for the files written with pre-CANDIDATE versions of the DEP, especially for optional fields. In summary, it is great to have your parser working on the current version of the DEP, recognising the required and optional fields. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110124015637.gf12...@merveille.plessy.net