Andreas Barth <[email protected]> writes: > * Charles Plessy ([email protected]) [100913 16:25]: >> > Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an >> > XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is >> > required. Is there a need for a particular header for this in >> > debian/copyright? Would not the Disclaimer field be sufficient? >> > >> > I propose to remove the entire paragraph. If the consensus is against >> > that, I propose we rename the field to Non-Free-Autobuild instead of >> > using an X- prefix. >> - describe the fact that the package is autobuildable in debian/copyright, >> >> X-Autobuild was a poor choice. My current opinion is that, unless there >> is an interest to parse a specific field, it it better to use existing >> ones, in that case Comment or Disclaimer. > We need both, the mail plus the field.
This is only about the field in debian/copyright, not about the field in debian/control. We don't need the former, only the latter. Marc -- BOFH #332: suboptimal routing experience
pgpWkzci9RJ5G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
