Re: upstream field in package description

[Russ Allbery]

Christian Schoenebeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Well, your suggestion sounds to me like "putting the cart before the
> horse". If "getting the packages to change" would easily realisable then
> there would be no need for a policy.  How should I ever get packagers to
> accept my proposal when there's no guideline covering it?

Get a check into lintian.  Some of us are obsessive about keeping packages
lintian-clean.  :)

I don't know what the criteria is for lintian checks, but I would guess
that a general consensus on debian-devel would produce a strong argument
in favor of a check.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: upstream field in package description

[Christian Schoenebeck]

Es geschah am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2005 21:58 als Chris Waters schrieb:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:08:54PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > Because if it would get part of the policy to be mandatory , then
> > developers would get stressed or at least noticed/pointed to by
> > (hopefully
> > policy-updated) packaging scripts.
>
> You misunderstand the purpose of policy.  "Policy is not a club to
> beat developers".  The purpose of policy is to decide which packages
> are so buggy that they should be removed from the archive before
> release!

My intention is not to beat anybody. My proposal was an top-down approach, 
being the policy a guideline for packagers.

> You're putting the cart before the horse.  Get the packages 
> to change, and THEN we'll consider changing policy to match.

Well, your suggestion sounds to me like "putting the cart before the horse". 
If "getting the packages to change" would easily realisable then there would 
be no need for a policy.
How should I ever get packagers to accept my proposal when there's no 
guideline covering it? Opening a wishlist item against every single package? 
No Debian maintainer would ever add a new, undocumented field, which actually 
makes sense, because what if everybody adds his own fields, or even worse - 
adding the same information with different field names? I would call that 
chaos and that's why it should be specified - by the policy.

Ok, seems I cannot convince anybody here. That just proofs me once again that 
moving something in Debian is almost impossible, at least if you are not a 
VIP.

Shutting up now 

CU
Christian

P.S. please CC me as I'm offlist !
(and no, my email client doesn't offer Mail-Followup-To header field)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: upstream field in package description

[Chris Waters]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:08:54PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:

> Because if it would get part of the policy to be mandatory , then developers 
> would get stressed or at least noticed/pointed to by (hopefully 
> policy-updated) packaging scripts.

You misunderstand the purpose of policy.  "Policy is not a club to
beat developers".  The purpose of policy is to decide which packages
are so buggy that they should be removed from the archive before
release!  You're putting the cart before the horse.  Get the packages
to change, and THEN we'll consider changing policy to match.

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: upstream field in package description

[Christian Schoenebeck]

Es geschah am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2005 15:12 als Bill Allombert schrieb:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:31:27AM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > Es geschah am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2005 01:33 als Bill Allombert schrieb:
> > > 1) Debian Policy mandate the information in the copyright file already:
> > >
> > > 12.5. Copyright information
> > > ---
> > > ...
> > >
> > >  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> > > sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original authors of
> > > the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were involved with its
> > > creation.
> >
> > Not sufficient IMO. Again; you need to download and/or install the
> > package to get that information.
>
> Not true. The copyright files are available on packages.debian.org.

And the user should be forced to go to packages.debian.org to get hat 
information? You seriously think this is a *good* solution? IMO the Debian 
servers should be discharged as much as possible as there is already more 
than enough load on them and adding some bytes per package for the upstream 
source isn't really a deal, is it? Also from the user's perspective I just 
find it logical to expect to get the upstream source with 'apt-cache show'.

> > > 6.2.4. Upstream home page
> > > -
> > >
> > >  We recommend that you add the URL for the package's home page to
> > > the package description in `debian/control'.  This information should
> > > be added at the end of description, using the following format:
> > >
> > >.
> > > Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/
> >
> > The 'good' thing about recommendations is that they can be ignored so
> > easily and in this case this specific recommendation is ignored by the
> > majority of all Debian packages!
>
> What would yours not be ignored even more ?
[snip]
> You failed to identify a single point where Upstream-Source is better than
> Homepage.

Because if it would get part of the policy to be mandatory , then developers 
would get stressed or at least noticed/pointed to by (hopefully 
policy-updated) packaging scripts. I think many developers aren't even aware 
of recommendation 6.2.4 and that's certainly the reason why the majority of 
packages do not provide it. And don't get me wrong; I dont care if this 
information is tagged as "Homepage: " or "Upstream-Source: " or whatever, as 
long as this information is provided, which is currently not seriously the 
case. But why would be an individual field be better than a pseudo field 
within the description section? I would have to ask why to _make_ it part of 
the description section? Why not adding "Depends: " and "Version: " also into 
the Description section? Excuse my irony, but this simply doesn't make sense 
to me, because the upstream source / homepage logically doesn't belong to the 
description section; it's an own information category and thus should be an 
own field. Which also makes it easier to get parsed and checked by scripts.

> > That missing upstream information is really annoying!
>
> That is no excuse.

Exactly, it's no excuse at all.

Do you see any real problem with my proposal? I hope I showed you that all 
your contra arguments do not conflict with this proposal and I seriously 
think it improves quality of the Debian package information system.

CU
Christian

P.S please CC me as I'm offlist !
(and no, my email client doesn't offer Mail-Followup-To header field)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: upstream field in package description

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:31:27AM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Es geschah am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2005 01:33 als Bill Allombert schrieb:
> > 1) Debian Policy mandate the information in the copyright file already:
> >
> > 12.5. Copyright information
> > ---
> > ...
> >
> >  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
> >  (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original authors of the
> >  package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were involved with its
> >  creation.
> 
> Not sufficient IMO. Again; you need to download and/or install the package to 
> get that information.

Not true. The copyright files are available on packages.debian.org.

> > 2) Developers-reference propose the following:
> >
> >
> > 6.2.4. Upstream home page
> > -
> >
> >  We recommend that you add the URL for the package's home page to the
> >  package description in `debian/control'.  This information should be
> >  added at the end of description, using the following format:
> >
> >.
> > Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/
> 
> The 'good' thing about recommendations is that they can be ignored so easily 
> and in this case this specific recommendation is ignored by the majority of 
> all Debian packages!

What would yours not be ignored even more ?

> > The Developers-reference proposal allow a stable user to go to
> > package.debian.org to read the description of the unstable version of
> > the package and get a more up-to-date information.
> 
> ... where he could also read a "Upstream-Source: " field generated 
> information...

Homepage has the merit to be already implemented.

> > 4) Some upstream authors do not want their email address to be exposed.
> > To their defense, someone buying the getithere.org domain might be
> > surprised to receive spams addressed to the foocrew user.
> 
> Upstream-Source: neglected
> or 
> Upstream-Source: undesired
> or even
> Upstream-Author: restricted
> 
> or whatever. All those contra arguments depend on a clear minority of packages
> and as you can see can still live with my proposal.

You failed to identify a single point where Upstream-Source is better than
Homepage.

> That missing upstream information is really annoying!

That is no excuse.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: upstream field in package description

[Christian Schoenebeck]

Es geschah am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2005 01:33 als Bill Allombert schrieb:
> 1) Debian Policy mandate the information in the copyright file already:
>
> 12.5. Copyright information
> ---
> ...
>
>  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
>  (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original authors of the
>  package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were involved with its
>  creation.

Not sufficient IMO. Again; you need to download and/or install the package to 
get that information.

> 2) Developers-reference propose the following:
>
>
> 6.2.4. Upstream home page
> -
>
>  We recommend that you add the URL for the package's home page to the
>  package description in `debian/control'.  This information should be
>  added at the end of description, using the following format:
>
>.
> Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/

The 'good' thing about recommendations is that they can be ignored so easily 
and in this case this specific recommendation is ignored by the majority of 
all Debian packages!

> 3) Information about upstream website tend to get outdated, so stable
> packages are likely to include outdated informations.

Right, upstream websites get outdated and so do packages. Better a pointer to 
an old webpage than none at all. This is not an argument for me at all!

> The Developers-reference proposal allow a stable user to go to
> package.debian.org to read the description of the unstable version of
> the package and get a more up-to-date information.

... where he could also read a "Upstream-Source: " field generated 
information...

> 4) Some upstream authors do not want their email address to be exposed.
> To their defense, someone buying the getithere.org domain might be
> surprised to receive spams addressed to the foocrew user.

Upstream-Source: neglected
or 
Upstream-Source: undesired
or even
Upstream-Author: restricted

or whatever. All those contra arguments depend on a clear minority of packages 
and as you can see can still live with my proposal. That missing upstream 
information is really annoying!

I hope you guys change your mind!

CU
Christian

P.S. Please CC me, I'm offlist !


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: upstream field in package description

[Christian Schoenebeck]

Es geschah am Freitag 13 Mai 2005 22:15 als Adeodato Simó schrieb:
> * Christian Schoenebeck [Fri, 13 May 2005 21:41:46 +0200]:
> > IMO at least the upstream source field should become mandatory for Debian
> > packages in future. On some packages it's really not that easy to trace
> > back the original upstream source, because not every maintainer is adding
> > that to the copyright or README.Debian file.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
>   That if a package does not contain those two bits of information in
>   the copyright file (author and where to get the source), you should
>   file a serious bug against the package, since the Debian Policy §12.5
>   mandates that such information must be present.
>
> > I would like to ask for adding a new field to Debian package descriptions
> > which defines the upstream source of a package, that is the location
> > where the original sources were downloaded and probably optional as
> > another field the upstream authors, like:
> >
> > Upstream-Source: http://www.getithere.org
> > Upstream-Author: Foo Crew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>   Hence no need for this, its place is not the description but the
>   copyright file, already.

I just faced another big point for the proposal of forcing an upstream field 
in package descriptions in future policies; you have to download and install 
the respective package. 

E.g. I just wanted to see some screenshots of "sketch" a vector drawing 
application. I would have to install it to get the upstream URL.

Even if there are packages which do not have an upstream URL (which are the 
absolute minory), then they could still simply provide something like:

 Upstream-Source: none

or whatever.

I really think this a very bad policy situation!

CU
Christian

P.S. please CC me, I'm offlist!

Re: upstream field in package description

[Marco d'Itri]

On May 13, Christian Schoenebeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> packages in future. On some packages it's really not that easy to trace back 
> the original upstream source, because not every maintainer is adding that to 
> the copyright or README.Debian file.
Then open bugs on these packages, do not add useless pseudo-control
headers (which also do not fit every package).

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: upstream field in package description

[Russ Allbery]

Christian Schoenebeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Es geschah am Freitag 13 Mai 2005 22:15 als Adeodato Simó schrieb:

>>   Hence no need for this, its place is not the description but the
>>   copyright file, already.

> Right, but as a package description field it's easy to ensure
> (automatically) that this information is really provided. You can't
> seriously check that automatically on a README or copyright file.

Well, you can if you require a particular format, but the main obstacle to
both checking it in the control file and checking it in the copyright file
is that not every package *has* an upstream author or upstream source.  So
it's not something that can be enforced uniformly.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 

Re: upstream field in package description

[Christian Schoenebeck]

Es geschah am Freitag 13 Mai 2005 22:15 als Adeodato Simó schrieb:
>   That if a package does not contain those two bits of information in
>   the copyright file (author and where to get the source), you should
>   file a serious bug against the package, since the Debian Policy §12.5
>   mandates that such information must be present.

Good on paper, better to be enforced.

> > I would like to ask for adding a new field to Debian package descriptions
> > which defines the upstream source of a package, that is the location
> > where the original sources were downloaded and probably optional as
> > another field the upstream authors, like:
> >
> > Upstream-Source: http://www.getithere.org
> > Upstream-Author: Foo Crew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>   Hence no need for this, its place is not the description but the
>   copyright file, already.

Right, but as a package description field it's easy to ensure (automatically) 
that this information is really provided. You can't seriously check that 
automatically on a README or copyright file.

This would improve quality of the Debian distribution and be handy for users 
as well.

CU
Christian

Re: upstream field in package description

[Bill Allombert]

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:41:46PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I would like to ask for adding a new field to Debian package descriptions 
> which defines the upstream source of a package, that is the location where 
> the original sources were downloaded and probably optional as another field 
> the upstream authors, like:
> 
> Upstream-Source: http://www.getithere.org
> Upstream-Author: Foo Crew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> IMO at least the upstream source field should become mandatory for Debian 
> packages in future. On some packages it's really not that easy to trace back 
> the original upstream source, because not every maintainer is adding that to 
> the copyright or README.Debian file.
> 
> What do you think?

1) Debian Policy mandate the information in the copyright file already:

12.5. Copyright information
---
...

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

2) Developers-reference propose the following:


6.2.4. Upstream home page
-

 We recommend that you add the URL for the package's home page to the
 package description in `debian/control'.  This information should be
 added at the end of description, using the following format:

   .
Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/

 Note the spaces prepending the line, which serves to break the lines
 correctly.  To see an example of how this displays, see
 http://packages.debian.org/unstable/text/docbook-dsssl.html.

3) Information about upstream website tend to get outdated, so stable
packages are likely to include outdated informations.

The Developers-reference proposal allow a stable user to go to
package.debian.org to read the description of the unstable version of
the package and get a more up-to-date information.

4) Some upstream authors do not want their email address to be exposed.
To their defense, someone buying the getithere.org domain might be 
surprised to receive spams addressed to the foocrew user.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: upstream field in package description

[Adeodato Simó]

* Christian Schoenebeck [Fri, 13 May 2005 21:41:46 +0200]:

> IMO at least the upstream source field should become mandatory for Debian 
> packages in future. On some packages it's really not that easy to trace back 
> the original upstream source, because not every maintainer is adding that to 
> the copyright or README.Debian file.

> What do you think?

  That if a package does not contain those two bits of information in
  the copyright file (author and where to get the source), you should
  file a serious bug against the package, since the Debian Policy §12.5
  mandates that such information must be present.

> I would like to ask for adding a new field to Debian package descriptions 
> which defines the upstream source of a package, that is the location where 
> the original sources were downloaded and probably optional as another field 
> the upstream authors, like:

> Upstream-Source: http://www.getithere.org
> Upstream-Author: Foo Crew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  Hence no need for this, its place is not the description but the
  copyright file, already.

  Cheers,

-- 
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
 
When all is summed up, a man never speaks of himself without loss; his
accusations of himself are always believed; his praises never.
-- Michel de Montaigne


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]