On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:00:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> > IMO, ideally the requirement in policy would be lifted by clarifying
> > that the information should be provided in *either* debian/copyright
> > or debian/watch.
> Personally, I usually find they're not the same thing.  debian/watch wants
> a very specific technical URL (the path to the download location), whereas
> I usually use the Source file to specify a higher-level view of the
> project.
> That's not an argument against your point that this is duplicative; it's
> just that I find Source to more normally duplicate Homepage in
> debian/control than duplicate debian/watch.

Just as an additional data point: For the average perl package, the
URL is the same in all three places (Homepage in d/control, Source in
d/copyright, and d/watch). [0]
Not a big deal, especially since we handle this mostly automatically,
but still this triplication (is this a word?) doesn't make too much
> I'm in favor of dropping this information from debian/copyright and
> instead writing some language saying that packages should include this
> information in Homepage in debian/control and, if there's a substantial
> non-obvious difference between the package home page and how to download
> it, put download information in debian/watch.

Sounds good to me.


[0] https://metacpan.org/release/Foo-Bar

 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Soluna Samay: Sing Out Loud

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Reply via email to