Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:56:17AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > I do not, however, agree with sneaking in additional requirements in > that field: > > >+ 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. > > In previous discussions we decided, I believe, to *not* decide on > specific handling of source removal. > > Personally I want for a later release of DEP-5 to handle this using > multiple optional Source-Removed: + Comment: sections. > > Your proposed patch makes it mandatory to mention in Source: and > would thus force me to either violate current DEP5 or duplicate > data. > > Please leave out that sentence until we have properly discussed how > to officially handle stripped source.
I also dislike this sentence, but it is in the current DEP, so I thought it is out of scope to remove it with the patch I proposed. However, I moved the reference to the Policy above that part, to better avoid misunderstanding. Anyhow, I fully support removal of the whole sentence. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
