Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Russ Allbery]

Sean Whitton  writes:
> On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Well, it doesn't, exactly... it says that it can be a web forum or
>> bugtracker, but doesn't say anything about being a URL.  Hm.
>>
>> Something about this sits wrong with me, in that I feel like we should
>> capture the upstream contact information directly rather than relying
>> on a URL remaining present on the web.  But I'm not sure it's that big
>> of a deal one way or the other, so I'm still okay with the wording you
>> proposed originally (and still second it).

> The case I had in mind was where the only information available was a
> URI, with no maintainer name or e-mail address.  In that case, Homepage:
> would duplicate that information, and that's what we're trying to avoid
> with this bug.

> On reflection I realise that such a case is rather unlikely.  But I
> would still like to cover it with this change.

Yeah, makes sense.  Works for me!  We can always revisit later if we run
into some issue with it.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +patch

On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Well, it doesn't, exactly... it says that it can be a web forum or
> bugtracker, but doesn't say anything about being a URL.  Hm.
>
> Something about this sits wrong with me, in that I feel like we should
> capture the upstream contact information directly rather than relying on a
> URL remaining present on the web.  But I'm not sure it's that big of a
> deal one way or the other, so I'm still okay with the wording you proposed
> originally (and still second it).

The case I had in mind was where the only information available was a
URI, with no maintainer name or e-mail address.  In that case, Homepage:
would duplicate that information, and that's what we're trying to avoid
with this bug.

On reflection I realise that such a case is rather unlikely.  But I
would still like to cover it with this change.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Russ Allbery]

Sean Whitton  writes:
> On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Seconded with or without the following nit.

>> Minor wording nit: I would put a period after "obtained" and make the
>> next part a separate sentence.  ("The copyright file should include a
>> name or contact address for the upstream authors.")  Otherwise, it
>> could be read as saying that the copyright file can only omit the
>> upstream source information if the URL pointed to by Homepage includes
>> name or contact information, but (a) that's not the point of your
>> change, and (b) we want that contact information to always be in the
>> copyright file if available because upstream URLs tend to disappear.

> I don't think this is so minor!

> The paragraph says that the upstream contact information can just be a
> URL, and if it is, then I think it could be omitted in favour of the
> Homepage: field.  It was deliberate that my addition applies to both the
> 'must' and the 'should' requirements.

> Do you disagree with this?

Well, it doesn't, exactly... it says that it can be a web forum or
bugtracker, but doesn't say anything about being a URL.  Hm.

Something about this sits wrong with me, in that I feel like we should
capture the upstream contact information directly rather than relying on a
URL remaining present on the web.  But I'm not sure it's that big of a
deal one way or the other, so I'm still okay with the wording you proposed
originally (and still second it).

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 -patch

On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Seconded with or without the following nit.
>
> Minor wording nit: I would put a period after "obtained" and make the next
> part a separate sentence.  ("The copyright file should include a name or
> contact address for the upstream authors.")  Otherwise, it could be read
> as saying that the copyright file can only omit the upstream source
> information if the URL pointed to by Homepage includes name or contact
> information, but (a) that's not the point of your change, and (b) we want
> that contact information to always be in the copyright file if available
> because upstream URLs tend to disappear.

I don't think this is so minor!

The paragraph says that the upstream contact information can just be a
URL, and if it is, then I think it could be omitted in favour of the
Homepage: field.  It was deliberate that my addition applies to both the
'must' and the 'should' requirements.

Do you disagree with this?

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Russ Allbery]

Sean Whitton  writes:

> I am seeking seconds for the following patch.  Given what Julian pointed
> out, it only permits Homepage: to be used, not d/watch.

> diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> index dc02bc6..d79f732 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> @@ -186,8 +186,10 @@ information and distribution license in the file
>  ``/usr/share/doc/package/copyright``. This file must neither be
>  compressed nor be a symbolic link.
>  
> -In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if
> -any) were obtained, and should include a name or contact address for the
> +In addition, except in the case where the information would duplicate
> +exactly the contents of the :ref:`Homepage ` field, the
> +copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if any) were
> +obtained, and should include a name or contact address for the
>  upstream authors. This can be the name of an individual or an
>  organization, an email address, a web forum or bugtracker, or any other
>  means to unambiguously identify who to contact to participate in the

Seconded with or without the following nit.

Minor wording nit: I would put a period after "obtained" and make the next
part a separate sentence.  ("The copyright file should include a name or
contact address for the upstream authors.")  Otherwise, it could be read
as saying that the copyright file can only omit the upstream source
information if the URL pointed to by Homepage includes name or contact
information, but (a) that's not the point of your change, and (b) we want
that contact information to always be in the copyright file if available
because upstream URLs tend to disappear.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +patch

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:39:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The difference between both sources of information is that Homepage is
> parseable, and debian/copyright is not. DEP-5 will not solve this
> problem: the Source field is more or less free-form. It may contain an
> URL, but not necessarly, and if there is an URL it is not guaranteed
> to be the one to the sources.

Indeed.

> When the information is redundant, I would like the Policy to permit
> it to be in a single place. This will give a bit of flexibility to
> allow for evolutions.  I think that the requirement to have the
> download URL in the debian/copyright file is one of the reasons why
> there is temptation to add other meta-data to it, and I think that it
> is not the place for this. Let's remember one of the last sentences of
> §12.5: ‘You should not use the copyright file as a general README
> file’.

Agreed.

I am seeking seconds for the following patch.  Given what Julian pointed
out, it only permits Homepage: to be used, not d/watch.

diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst
index dc02bc6..d79f732 100644
--- a/policy/ch-docs.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst
@@ -186,8 +186,10 @@ information and distribution license in the file
 ``/usr/share/doc/package/copyright``. This file must neither be
 compressed nor be a symbolic link.
 
-In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if
-any) were obtained, and should include a name or contact address for the
+In addition, except in the case where the information would duplicate
+exactly the contents of the :ref:`Homepage ` field, the
+copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if any) were
+obtained, and should include a name or contact address for the
 upstream authors. This can be the name of an individual or an
 organization, an email address, a web forum or bugtracker, or any other
 means to unambiguously identify who to contact to participate in the

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Bill Allombert]

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 06:17:03PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy  writes:
> > Le Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> 
> >> Especially if the plan is to later remove policy's requirement that
> >> copyright specify the Source, which would presumably mean deprecating
> >> the field in DEP5. And there's a good agument that policy's current
> >> requirement is vestigial, having been supersceded by more specific
> >> information that is provided in a machine-usable format in the watch
> >> file and Homepage field. The only remaining use for Source in DEP5
> >> would then be things like "Source: usenet posting from 1983".
> 
> > I support Joey's comment and propose to simply remove the requirement
> > from the Policy. I do not think that people will remove the information
> > from debian/copyright without having a Homepage field if they do not
> > have one, so I propose to keep thinks short and to not cross-reference
> > nor replace with incitations.
> 
> I could have sworn we'd discussed this before.
> 
> I'm opposed to this change as proposed because it means that we can have
> packages without any hint as to where the upstream source came from (since
> Homepage is not required).
> 
> I think it might be okay to make the indication of the origin of the
> upstream source in debian/copyright optional *if* Homepage clearly
> provides the same information for that package.  (Note: this will not be
> the case for all packages with a Homepage setting, since in some cases
> it's hard or impossible to figure out how to get the upstream source when
> starting from the URL in Homepage.)

We should keep in mind that originally, the location of upstream source was
most of the time some directory on some public ftp server. For example
libjpeg6b had statement 

"This package was created by Mark Mickan  from sources
which can be found at ftp://ftp.uu.net/graphics/jpeg/jpegsrc.v6b.tar.gz";

which did not provide any information about the project.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Ben Finney]

Charles Plessy  writes:

> Le Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 09:38:51AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> > […] the proposal lacks the information about what cost is associated
> > with the current sitiuation. Really, it's just a few keystrokes when
> > first creating the package and hardly needs to be changed afterward.
> > […]
> > 
> > What problem is this trying to solve?
>
> In a recent discussion about DEP-5, it was noted that often the
> Homepage field is redundant with the information in debian/copyright:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/20110113213843.gb11...@gnu.kitenet.net

That doesn't argue against the current situation. The Homepage field
isn't recording the same fact as needed in the ‘copyright’ file.

> Note that the purpose of the Homepage field, perhaps unfortunately
> more in the Policy than in the practice, is already to lead to the
> upstream sources:

I think you are misrepresenting that part of Policy:

>   5.6.23 Homepage
>   
>   The URL of the web site for this package, preferably (when
>   applicable) the site from which the original source can be obtained
>   and any additional upstream documentation or information may be
>   found. The content of this field is a simple URL without any
>   surrounding characters such as <>.

Note that this does not say “the URL from which the original source was
obtained”. The purpose of ‘Homepage’ is to record the homepage of the
*site* from which various information about the upstream package, not
only the source, can be obtained.

A URL pointing *only* to the source would be inappropriate for
‘Homepage’, unless that best met the description of “the web site for
this package”.

For any package whose upstream website contains a mix of descriptions,
news, release downloads, BTS, VCS, documentation, mailing lists, etc.,
the URL appropriate for ‘Homepage’ would not be one appropriate for
DEP-5 ‘Source’.

So your lament that Homepage is “perhaps unfortunately more in the
Policy than in the practice … to lead to the upstream sources”, is
because the Policy wording doesn't support that view.

The ‘Source’ field of DEP-5, on the other hand, is specifically about
the provenance of the source code for the package in Debian. This is not
the same thing as ‘Homepage’. If the same URL is appropriate for both,
that would be a special case only, and does not make either one
redundant.

-- 
 \ “I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we |
  `\ understand this cosmos, in which we float like a mote of dust |
_o__) in the morning sky.” —Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_, 1980 |
Ben Finney 



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 03:01:08PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> On Sun, January 16, 2011 10:39, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > In a recent discussion about DEP-5, it was noted that often the Homepage
> > field
> > is redundant with the information in debian/copyright:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/20110113213843.gb11...@gnu.kitenet.net
> >
> > The goal of the patch that I attached here is to give the possiblity for
> > the maintainers to factorise information if they wish.
> 
> I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean with that they can "factorise
> information". I only know factorising as a mathematical operation. What
> will they do exactly? But more importantly, and pertaining to my original
> question: what problem would that solve that we have now?

I would not call this a problem. This part of the Policy can stay as it is for
20 years, and Debian's quality will not decrease. This is why I filed the bug
with a wishlist severity. However:

The Homepage field is becoming a primary source of information for going to the
download page, because it is parsed and its contents are displayed by
downstream information providers, like apt-cache and packages.debian.org. In a
large number of cases, the URL provided in debian/copyright content is
identical, or one obvious click far from the link in the Homepage field. I only
look at debian/copyright if Homepage did not give me satisfaction.

The difference between both sources of information is that Homepage is
parseable, and debian/copyright is not. DEP-5 will not solve this problem: the
Source field is more or less free-form. It may contain an URL, but not
necessarly, and if there is an URL it is not guaranteed to be the one to the
sources.

When the information is redundant, I would like the Policy to permit it to be
in a single place. This will give a bit of flexibility to allow for evolutions.
I think that the requirement to have the download URL in the debian/copyright
file is one of the reasons why there is temptation to add other meta-data to
it, and I think that it is not the place for this. Let's remember one of the
last sentences of §12.5: ‘You should not use the copyright file as a general
README file’.

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[gregor herrmann]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:14:06 +, Julian Gilbey wrote:

> > maybe also "if uscan just works and d/watch is
> > sufficiently clear" (not a proper wording for Policy but as a rough
> > idea).
> Not the latter please: it is not useful if you only have the binary
> package installed but not the source.

Good point, thanks.

Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-NP: Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band: Atlantic City


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Ben Finney]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> I'm opposed to this change as proposed because it means that we can
> have packages without any hint as to where the upstream source came
> from (since Homepage is not required).

I'm opposed to the change having anything to do with the Homepage field,
since even when Homepage is used, that value is frequently not
sufficient to identify the location of the upstream source.

The control file Homepage field is recording a different fact from the
copyright Source field. One does not depend on the other, and when they
happen to be the same that's incidental.

> I think it might be okay to make the indication of the origin of the
> upstream source in debian/copyright optional *if* Homepage clearly
> provides the same information for that package.

I'm more sympathetic to that position. But it seems akin to arguing that
the maintainer in Debian and the upstream contact might be the same
person; perhaps true, but that shouldn't argue against recording the two
distinct facts in the appropriate places.

-- 
 \  “Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not |
  `\ happen at all. The conscientious historian will correct these |
_o__)  defects.” —Mark Twain, _A Horse's Tale_ |
Ben Finney 



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Julian Gilbey]

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 03:31:41AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> What is boring (like for all CPAN modules) is to have the very same
> information in 3 places (copyright, control, watch), therefore I'd
> support a change like you sketched above ("may be skipped if Homepage
> is clear enough") or maybe also "if uscan just works and d/watch is
> sufficiently clear" (not a proper wording for Policy but as a rough
> idea).

Not the latter please: it is not useful if you only have the binary
package installed but not the source.

   Julian




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[gregor herrmann]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:17:03 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> I think it might be okay to make the indication of the origin of the
> upstream source in debian/copyright optional *if* Homepage clearly
> provides the same information for that package.  (Note: this will not be
> the case for all packages with a Homepage setting, since in some cases
> it's hard or impossible to figure out how to get the upstream source when
> starting from the URL in Homepage.)

I agree. I think it's definitively helpful to quickly see where the upstream
code comes from.

What is boring (like for all CPAN modules) is to have the very same
information in 3 places (copyright, control, watch), therefore I'd
support a change like you sketched above ("may be skipped if Homepage
is clear enough") or maybe also "if uscan just works and d/watch is
sufficiently clear" (not a proper wording for Policy but as a rough
idea).


Cheers,
gregor
 
-- 
 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-NP: Red Hot Chili Peppers: Wet Sand


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Plessy  writes:
> Le Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :

>> Especially if the plan is to later remove policy's requirement that
>> copyright specify the Source, which would presumably mean deprecating
>> the field in DEP5. And there's a good agument that policy's current
>> requirement is vestigial, having been supersceded by more specific
>> information that is provided in a machine-usable format in the watch
>> file and Homepage field. The only remaining use for Source in DEP5
>> would then be things like "Source: usenet posting from 1983".

> I support Joey's comment and propose to simply remove the requirement
> from the Policy. I do not think that people will remove the information
> from debian/copyright without having a Homepage field if they do not
> have one, so I propose to keep thinks short and to not cross-reference
> nor replace with incitations.

I could have sworn we'd discussed this before.

I'm opposed to this change as proposed because it means that we can have
packages without any hint as to where the upstream source came from (since
Homepage is not required).

I think it might be okay to make the indication of the origin of the
upstream source in debian/copyright optional *if* Homepage clearly
provides the same information for that package.  (Note: this will not be
the case for all packages with a Homepage setting, since in some cases
it's hard or impossible to figure out how to get the upstream source when
starting from the URL in Homepage.)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

[Charles Plessy]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist

Le Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> 
> Especially if the plan is to later remove policy's requirement that
> copyright specify the Source, which would presumably mean deprecating
> the field in DEP5. And there's a good agument that policy's current
> requirement is vestigial, having been supersceded by more specific
> information that is provided in a machine-usable format in the watch
> file and Homepage field. The only remaining use for Source in DEP5 would
> then be things like "Source: usenet posting from 1983".

Dear all,

I support Joey's comment and propose to simply remove the requirement from the
Policy. I do not think that people will remove the information from
debian/copyright without having a Homepage field if they do not have one, so I
propose to keep thinks short and to not cross-reference nor replace with
incitations.

Note that I also proposed the deletion of the second part of the paragraph
below in #593533.

Cheers,

-- Charles

>From 9a58ade93eeaddd5208a744b174d5288a7daac61 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy 
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:26:32 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Remove requirement to document upstream source location in 
debian/copyright.

---
 policy.sgml |3 +--
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 642f672..e00ece9 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -9608,8 +9608,7 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY

 

- In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
- sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
+ It should name the original
  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
  involved with its creation.

-- 
1.7.2.3



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org