Le Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:35:08PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > By my reading of ‘copyright-format/1.0’ (the “Machine-readable > debian/copyright file” specification), the normative place for that > information is the “Source” field: > > Source > > Formatted text, no synopsis: an explanation of where the > upstream source came from. Typically this would be a URL, but it > might be a free-form explanation. The Debian Policy section 12.5 > requires this information unless there are no upstream sources, > which is mainly the case for native Debian packages. If the > upstream source has been modified to remove non-free parts, that > should be explained in this field. > > Because of that explicit specification, and that such repacking needs to > be in an automated program or configuration anyway and explained in the > “Source” field, I think adding another special place for this > information is unnecessary duplication.
Hi Ben, http://bugs.debian.org/685506 tracks the proposal of adding a Files-Excluded in the next version of the specification. Your comment implies that the definition of the Source field should be changed together with the addition of Files-Excluded, and I think that it is totally doable. People who like the information to be in debian/copyright worked on an implementation that is used and now supported in devscripts. In contrary, people who like the information to be somewhere else, however good are their reasons, did not produce a viable alternative. Unless there is a concrete commitment for creating a robust and well-accepted alternative, I think that there is no point discussing the issue further. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131210085912.gd23...@falafel.plessy.net
