Bill Allombert <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 02:31:30PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Bill Allombert <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> Although what do you mean packaging tools shouldn't require the use of >> >> copyright-format? There is no requirement here, everything is opt-in. >> >> The patch document these to be optional fields, for those who want to >> >> use them as they are supported by uscan and mk-origtargz. >> > >> > Getting uscan to call mk-origtargz to remove files requires using the new >> > copyright-format. Otherwise the maintainer need to call mk-origtargz >> > manually. We should do better. >> >> I'm not sure I follow here. How? From a design point of view, having a >> Files Excluded/Included wildcard list seems like a reasonable approach. >> And people will need to opt-in to use some mechanism, or do things >> manually. > > mk-origtargz does not process Files-Excluded in debian/copyright if > debian/copyright is not in the new copyright-format.
Right. Would you want it to behave in any other way? If someone dislikes the new copyright-format, they can do things manually. Or come up with a new specification how to do things, and try to gain adoption of that. There is no direct conflict with any of that compared to documenting the current approach. >> Is your concern that the existing fields hi-jack the debian/copyright >> file, when those fields could have been put in a different file? > > Indeed. Thanks for clarifying. I see your point, and can sympathize, but I think this is a case where the current situation is not perfect, but it so widely used and fixing all those occurances is a lot of work compared to merely document and accept what is currently used and working. If there would be some actual substantial GAIN from changing all Files-* in debian/copyright to using some new format, that is a better argument, but even then I see no problem to document the current approach. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
