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 upstrea
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 con
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 upst
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 upstrea
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
>
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
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 deprec
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 chan
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.debi
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 sourc
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 Homep
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
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
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 cur
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
