On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 22:13:11 +0500 Akbarkhon Variskhanov wrote:

> Hi.


> I know that this format is optional but I was wondering what exactly
> this field is expected to include. In my interpretation, it's a URL to
> a directory containing upstream tarballs, say
> https://www.example.com/src/download. However, I've also seen people
> put links to upstream Git repositories. Which one is closer to the
> definition and is preferred over the other?

The official [documentation] says:

| 6.4. Source
| Formatted text, no synopsis: an explanation of where the upstream
| source came from. Typically this would be a URL, but it might be a
| free-form explanation. The Debian Policy section 12.5 requires this
| information unless there are no upstream sources, which is mainly the
| case for native Debian packages. If the upstream source has been
| modified to remove non-free parts, that should be explained in this
| field.


I interpret it to mean that you should use this field to explain where
you took the upstream source from. Basically, whatever you started from,
in order to create the Debian package.

> Technically, *the* source
> is the Git repository but if we're talking about packaged releases,
> tarball is the source to which the current debian/copyright file
> applies. It seems to me that both interpretations may be deemed valid.
> Was that intentional? Could you perhaps clarify it a little bit?

I think it's flexible enough to accommodate for any specific case.

Anyway, I am _not_ one of the people who were involved in the drafting
of the machine readable debian/copyright format specification.
Maybe one of those people can clarify better than me...

I hope this helps.

 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpwW4n9wY8Qb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to