On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:16:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I have just found the bug #542863 reported on dh-make, where Guillaume > suggests Craig to use the machine-readable format for the template of > debian/copyright.
> While I support the use of this format, I am worried that having it > suggested by dh-make would create a standard despite it is still a draft. > For instance, if hundreds of package use a given field name with a given > syntax, it becomes naturally an argument against their modification, and > in my opinion it is very important that in the future discussions about > standardisation of the format, the door is still wide open for accepting > changes. > I am therefore tempted to recommend against the inclusion of a template in > dh-make. I would go further than this: if I see that dh-make adds a template using an incomplete draft debian/copyright, I will file a bug against the package demanding removal of that template. I support use of a standard for use of machine-readable copyright files; I do *not* support use of incomplete drafts (and particularly not the bad draft on http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat). > Since Steve is quite implicated in DEP-5 as well, I put him in the loop so > that he can comment on this. Thanks for the Cc! Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
