On Monday 14 September 2015 18:19:52 Adrien Grellier wrote: > So I just take the current procedure to > update the copyright file, et voila.
You've used broken self-proclaimed procedure that does not work because it
produces meaningless result.
> Users are asking for calligra in sid,
> and with the GCC-5 transition, we better upload a new version soon.
It would be nice indeed. However I reckon from your prospective copyright is
not a stopper since apparently you are prepared to upload incorrect
copyright.
> As I said before, I like to have a clean, reproducible procedure, and well
> documented. That's why I created the README.source. I like it because I
> usually can't remember how to do all the stuff, and it's much simpler for
> newcomer to understand the packaging.
I should have removed this procedure from README.source. :(
I like documenting things too, especially if procedure is dramatically
different from established practices in Debian. On this instance you've been
told not to do things this way yet you continue wrongdoing... :(
> If you want to improve the procedure, just like we all have done before,
> you're totally welcome to do it!
Please stop asking me to do what I'm already doing. What do you think this
email is about?
> But for now, I have seen you trashing all our work, without discussing it
> before. You replace it by your work, unfinished, without document it.
That's just plain nonsense. First of all "trashing our work" is a gross
misrepresentation of what happened. You did copyright file all by yourself
and I do not see any of your work in there since you've found an "easy way"
to just autogenerate the file and walk away from your maintainer's duties.
You are knowingly producing trash copyright file, you are happy to discard
valid and accurate part and you are accusing me of trashing your work? What a
hypocrisy... :(
I've replaced only part of copyright file that I reviewed manually file by
file carefully preserving autogenerated part covering files that I did not
check even though there are errors.
Copyright review never needs to be documented in README. Every time new
upstream version is released you compare it against previous release (yes you
will have to check hundreds or thousands of changes) and meticulously
document changes in "copyright". Even for package like Calligra it takes only
few hours to update copyright provided that existing copyright file is
accurate.
> It's not a way of working together! So please document precisely your way
> of creating and updating the copyright, so we can reproduce it quickly, and
> then we may discuss it, to balance the pros and cons.
See my previous emails. There is nothing to discuss here. Your auto-generated
copyright is not suitable. Just stop wasting everyone's time on the broken
procedure if you are unwilling to do the work properly.
> You proposed to mix GPL and LGPL license in one paragraph. I am not sure
> it's a good idea.
It seams to be a viable solution to maintain accurate information. Maybe not
perfect but at least it is a way forward.
> If someone wants to take only the LGPL parts, for
> instance to integrate non free modifications in it, he cannot use the
> copyright file for it.
It is not Debian's concern to care about non-free integrators. Besides nobody
can use current copyright even for that reason.
> But I am not sure about the goal of the debian/copyright file: is it mean
> to be readable by a human ? or only by scripts ?
Of course it mean to be readable by human. It is usually written an updated
by humans - you should have known that.
> I agree that grouping the versions of a same license together is a good
> idea.
Thank you. This way I believe we will be able to maintain it.
> And what the others in the team are thinking about it ?
Maxy? What do you think?
--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride
it, but in the end; there it is.
-- Winston Churchill
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
