Hi Steve, Russ, and everybody, Le Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:05:30AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> === modified file 'dep5/copyright-format.xml' > --- old/dep5/copyright-format.xml 2011-12-12 07:48:31 +0000 > +++ new/dep5/copyright-format.xml 2011-12-12 08:01:32 +0000 > @@ -118,6 +118,12 @@ > avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. > </para> > <para> > + The file consists of two or more paragraphs. At minimum, the file > + must include one <link linkend="header-paragraph">header > + paragraph</link> and one <link linkend="files-paragraph">Files > + paragraph</link>. > + </para> > + <para> > There are four kinds values for fields. Each field specifies which > kind > is allowed. > </para> > Seconded, see below. Le Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:51:59AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > During the discussion of allowing Copyright and License fields in the > header paragraph, one of the things that was raised is the possibility of > using the DEP-5 format with *just* a header paragraph as a structured way > of representing the level of detail found in a lot of old-school > debian/copyright files. It would let people convert the copyright files > that just say "here's the copyright and license for upstream" to DEP-5 > without implying that they've actually reviewed each file and confirmed > they are all covered under that license (and not, say, some compatible > one). In my understanding, Copyright and License fields were allowed in the Header paragraph to let the maintainer provide a summary, or to state collective copyrights and licenses, but not to replace the Files paragraphs. This was discussed in January 2011 in the following thread. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/01/msg00099.html There was a related discussion in September 2010, where the decision was of “getting rid of the optionality of "Files: *"” http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/09/msg00128.html Unfortunately, I could not find the thread where allowing the Copyright field in the Header paragraph was discussed, but I think that the conclusion is the same. For largest packages it means that it may be difficult to have a Debian copyright file using the DEP 5 format, but given that its use is optional, I do not think that it is a limitation, as this format is not designed for cases where the license of some files is uncertain. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
