On 05/05/2014 06:16 AM, Emilien Klein wrote: > It's not about being more strict. > It's about explicitly mentioning a requirement that is not clear to a > number of our co-packagers.
FWIW, if the exclusions in debian/copyright (those mentioned on the wiki) interact properly with uscan, and if the uscan-based repackaging is deterministic (e.g. run it twice on the upstream tarball and get the same repacked tarball, byte-for-byte), and if all of our packages have valid debian/watch files, so that the normal package update is uscan, then i can live with this policy. I personally don't think it seems necessary, but if it encourages people to use standard tools, and to ensure that those tools are in good working order, and to document our relationships with upstream, then it could be a good thing overall. --dkg PS i haven't tested all of the conditions i mentioned above, i'm just hypothesizing and haven't had time to investigate further. sorry for my laziness!
Description: OpenPGP digital signature