* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([email protected]) [100915 17:39]: > 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.
Oh, sure. Technically, we even only need something in Sources (but that is derived from d/control). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
