On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:03:03PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > So would be nice to check that the implementation properly includes all
> > of the following items:
> >
> > Format:
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> > Source: http://susy.oddbird.net/
> > Repackaged, excluding non-DFSG licensed fonts and source-less
> > JavaScript
> > Files-Excluded:
> > docs/source/javascripts/jquery-1.7.1.min.js
> > docs/source/javascripts/modernizr-2.5.3.min.js
> > Files-Excluded-comment: Exlude source-less JavaScript
> > Files-Excluded: foo/bar
> > docs/source/fonts/*
> > baz
> > boom/boom/
> > Files-Excluded-comment: Exlude non-DFSG licensed fonts and more
> > Just for demonstration purpose, this paragraph has multiple
> > lines.
>
> Hi all,
>
> a paragraph must not contain multiple instances of the same field.
I can confirm that I tried this yesterday and it really fails (just
forgot to report this here).
> Perhaps
> the example above suggests that the Files-Excluded field is not well suited
> for the header paragraph ?
Hmmm, even if the suggestion for a commenting feature for single entries
is a bit spoiled technically - logically I would expect this information
somehow in the header.
> I also think that the current proposal would be a good opportunity to transfer
> the information about source location and excluded files in a separate file
> that would be parsed by uscan and others, and which format would be easier
> than
> debian/watch.
I guess you mean your DEP12 proposal, right?[1]
I admit this alternative came to my mind yesterday once Ian had trouble
with debian/copyright but later he has withdrawn his objection and I had
not seen any need to bring in this idea any more.
>From my perspective the debian/copyright file is the ideal file because:
1. Content wise the information is license / DFSG related and it
is a close to perfect way to document the removal here inside
the copyright file.
2. Technically it is perfectly possible (see #685787).
3. The unability to comment every single exclusion in the current
form is not as important enough (to me) to seek actively for
a different solution (even if I made some similar comments in
some get-orig-source scripts)
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/06/msg00164.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120825052406.gc21...@an3as.eu
