On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:40:28 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:

Some remarks:

> Andreas Tille dixit:
> >explicit wish to not use DEP5.  I wonder what other reasons might exist
> >to explicitly stick to the non-machine readable format.
> I prefer human-readable format. I also often deal in software which
> has more… flexibility than the DEP 5 format allows, or where it is
> plain simpler.

- It's called "Copyright Format 1.0" since a couple of years, DEP5
  was during the development state.
- Personally I find d/copyright files in CF 1.0 much more readable
  than free-form prose where I have to find the relevant information
  somewhere instead of having it stand out. Maybe that makes me a
  machine :) or maybe "maching-readable" is not the best
  characterization of CF 1.0  

> I have no problem with it in general, as long as it’s not forced.
> It’s clearly a 90%+ solution, not a 100% solution.

This sounds like a very good compromise to me.

Lately we as a project, guided by the DPL, have been in
recommendation mode anyway: "Use dh(1) unless you have a reason not
to", "Use git(1) and salsa unless …".

I think "Write d/copyright in Copyright-Format 1.0 unless you have a
specific reason not to do this for a specific package" would be a
good continuation of this streak.


 .''`.  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: Eric Clapton: Cocaine

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Reply via email to