On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Jari Aalto wrote: > Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Indeed, and this is wasted time when the person filing the bug could have > > gone to the CRMI website and filled the infos by himself. > > When would you estimate that it would be a reality? The page is dated > 2006-05-27.
No idea. I don't know anyone working on that. In the mean time we have Mole (http://wiki.debian.org/Mole) and Ultimate Debian Database (http://wiki.debian.org/UltimateDebianDatabase) that appeared and that should be taken into account too. The CRMI was a proposal discussed at debconf and proposed by myself as part of my work in the QA team and related to my experience with the PTS. But then I lost interest in coding it but I'm still convinced that we need something like that. > Doesn't the CRMI contradict with the more recent proposal, which aims > to bring the meta information to debian/copyright? > > http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat [*] Well copyright info has to stay in the package for obvious reasons… standardizing that information only gives benefits. > > the data collected would be transparently used by other applications, > > the website is mainly meant to update data not to consult it. > > I would say that the information is consulted more easily daily basis by > using: > > apt-get > aptitude > sunaptic Right. And the PTS and packages.debian.org. > Looking at [*] more, this shows tendency to prefer meta-information > inside the package instead of external CRMI. I think this bug's proposal > belongs there. I've just updated the [*] page. And you got the same answer there (by NoahSlater): it doesn't look right to put that information in the copyright file either. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
