Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
Hi Gregor, On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47:56AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > I've implemented this. lintian-brush will attempt to update these > > fields in debian/copyright only and remove them from > > debian/upstream/metadata. > > That means that dh-make-perl and dpt-debian-upstream should also at > least stop adding the Name and Contact fields. I think this makes > sense, we've only added them because they were in the spec and we > already had the data, but they didn't make alot of sense to me (as > duplicates from d/copyright, as you both noted). -- In fact we are > only caring about Repository* and Bug* fields (the former were the > reason why we started to use d/u/m in the first place). Since you speak about notes to yourself: We should also think about what fields from d/u/m should be stored in UDD. Currently the bibliographic references are stored but since I had no actual use for other fields these are ignored for the moment. > I'll make these changes in the perl tools; I'm just wondering, and > that's why I'm writing a public email :), if other tools and/or other > teams use these fields as well and should be notified. Or, in other > words, I fear that having this change only in some thread on -devel > might not be enough. ACK. Thanks for that very valid point. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 09:46:34PM +, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > I think longer term it would actually make sense to put this information in > debian/upstream/metadata rather than debian/copyright, so all upstream > metadata > is in one place - but that would obviously require a change to DEP-5 first. Fully agreed. Once we have properly decided where to store what that's perfectly fine. In your great lintian-brush tool you have proven how easy the move can be - its just not the right time to do so. > > I'd be really happy if lintian-brush would remove those values (please > > let me know if you want me to file a bug report about this). > > I've implemented this. lintian-brush will attempt to update these > fields in debian/copyright only and remove them from debian/upstream/metadata. Thanks a lot. > Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. I'll happily do so. Thanks again, Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 21:46:34 +, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: Hi Andreas and Jelmer, I agree with everything you've said (and changed in the d/u/m spec and in lintian-brush), thank you. Just one remark, partly a note to self: > > The idea that lintian is warning about those fields missing in > > d/u/metadata is not sensible, neither that some tool adds the values. > > It was some Wiki edit away[4] to ensure you about this that this stuff > > is really in flux and its better to not waste time on this without > > discussing it first. > > > > I'd be really happy if lintian-brush would remove those values (please > > let me know if you want me to file a bug report about this). > > I've implemented this. lintian-brush will attempt to update these > fields in debian/copyright only and remove them from debian/upstream/metadata. That means that dh-make-perl and dpt-debian-upstream should also at least stop adding the Name and Contact fields. I think this makes sense, we've only added them because they were in the spec and we already had the data, but they didn't make alot of sense to me (as duplicates from d/copyright, as you both noted). -- In fact we are only caring about Repository* and Bug* fields (the former were the reason why we started to use d/u/m in the first place). I'll make these changes in the perl tools; I'm just wondering, and that's why I'm writing a public email :), if other tools and/or other teams use these fields as well and should be notified. Or, in other words, I fear that having this change only in some thread on -devel might not be enough. Cheers, gregor, cc'ing the perl list as a start -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Rolling Stones: Everlasting signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
Hi Andreas, On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:47:51AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:46:23PM +, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I observed that lintian-brush is adding a file debian/upstream/metadata > > > if it finds the fields Upstream-Name and Upstream-Contact in > > > debian/copyright. > > > > > What is the sense to duplicate data that we can find in a well > > > established machine readable file in another file? > > That's a good question. > > > > I've considered (but not implemented yet) having lintian-brush not create a > > debian/upstream/metadata if the only upstream metadata fields it can set are > > the name and contact. > > It would be really great to implement this. Considering the current > situation I would even remove the fields Name and Contact from > debian/upstream/metadata if the according fields are in debian/copyright > (or move them if they are missing in d/copyright). If some empty > d/u/metadata remains this should be removed as well. > > IMHO a good rule of thumb is: Do not copy any data from some well > established machine readable file to some other place. Agreed, having data duplicated in two Debian-specific files seems unnecessary and bad. > > At the moment, both the debian/copyright [1] and debian/upstream/metadata > > [2] > > standards both define two fields with (as far as I can tell) the same > > purpose. > > Neither of the standards provide any guidance as to whether the fields > > should be set in both files or whether e.g. one is preferred over the other. > > It would be great if some guidance could be added to DEP-12 about how to > > deal > > with these fields. > > DEP-12 is declared as "Work in progress" (without any progress since 5 > years) while DEP-5 is well established and decided. Charles and I > invented d/u/metadata to store publication information and it turned out > that there is other sensible information about upstream that can be > stored there as well. I'd vote against any duplication of information > in any way. So as long as Name and Contact are defined in DEP-5 it > should not be in DEP-12. > So far I removed redundant fields from the Wiki page[3] (it had also > Homepage, Watch and others I might have forgot) since it simply adds > useless maintenance burden to maintain the same information at different > places. Thanks for updating the specification. I think longer term it would actually make sense to put this information in debian/upstream/metadata rather than debian/copyright, so all upstream metadata is in one place - but that would obviously require a change to DEP-5 first. > The idea that lintian is warning about those fields missing in > d/u/metadata is not sensible, neither that some tool adds the values. > It was some Wiki edit away[4] to ensure you about this that this stuff > is really in flux and its better to not waste time on this without > discussing it first. > > I'd be really happy if lintian-brush would remove those values (please > let me know if you want me to file a bug report about this). I've implemented this. lintian-brush will attempt to update these fields in debian/copyright only and remove them from debian/upstream/metadata. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Cheers, Jelmer
Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 05:47:24PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:48 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > > > DEP-12 is declared as "Work in progress" (without any progress since 5 > > years) while DEP-5 is well established and decided. Charles and I > > invented d/u/metadata to store publication information and it turned out > > that there is other sensible information about upstream that can be > > stored there as well. I'd vote against any duplication of information > > in any way. So as long as Name and Contact are defined in DEP-5 it > > should not be in DEP-12. > > These fields seem like they belong in DEP-12 more than DEP-5. Finally that's a matter of taste where the fields belong to. As long as there is no decision including a change of DEP-5 and a finalised DEP-12 I'd consider any change as its currently done as premature. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:48 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > DEP-12 is declared as "Work in progress" (without any progress since 5 > years) while DEP-5 is well established and decided. Charles and I > invented d/u/metadata to store publication information and it turned out > that there is other sensible information about upstream that can be > stored there as well. I'd vote against any duplication of information > in any way. So as long as Name and Contact are defined in DEP-5 it > should not be in DEP-12. These fields seem like they belong in DEP-12 more than DEP-5. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
Hi Jelmer, On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:46:23PM +, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I observed that lintian-brush is adding a file debian/upstream/metadata > > if it finds the fields Upstream-Name and Upstream-Contact in > > debian/copyright. > > > What is the sense to duplicate data that we can find in a well > > established machine readable file in another file? > That's a good question. > > I've considered (but not implemented yet) having lintian-brush not create a > debian/upstream/metadata if the only upstream metadata fields it can set are > the name and contact. It would be really great to implement this. Considering the current situation I would even remove the fields Name and Contact from debian/upstream/metadata if the according fields are in debian/copyright (or move them if they are missing in d/copyright). If some empty d/u/metadata remains this should be removed as well. IMHO a good rule of thumb is: Do not copy any data from some well established machine readable file to some other place. > At the moment, both the debian/copyright [1] and debian/upstream/metadata [2] > standards both define two fields with (as far as I can tell) the same purpose. > Neither of the standards provide any guidance as to whether the fields > should be set in both files or whether e.g. one is preferred over the other. > It would be great if some guidance could be added to DEP-12 about how to deal > with these fields. DEP-12 is declared as "Work in progress" (without any progress since 5 years) while DEP-5 is well established and decided. Charles and I invented d/u/metadata to store publication information and it turned out that there is other sensible information about upstream that can be stored there as well. I'd vote against any duplication of information in any way. So as long as Name and Contact are defined in DEP-5 it should not be in DEP-12. So far I removed redundant fields from the Wiki page[3] (it had also Homepage, Watch and others I might have forgot) since it simply adds useless maintenance burden to maintain the same information at different places. The idea that lintian is warning about those fields missing in d/u/metadata is not sensible, neither that some tool adds the values. It was some Wiki edit away[4] to ensure you about this that this stuff is really in flux and its better to not waste time on this without discussing it first. I'd be really happy if lintian-brush would remove those values (please let me know if you want me to file a bug report about this). BTW, in general I really like lintian-brush which does a pretty nice job and I'll keep on running it even if I do not like the feature above. So please keep on the nice work. Kind regards Andreas. > [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > [2] https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep12/ [3] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata [4] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata#Deprecated_fields -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: lintian-brush adds redundant data
Hi Andreas, On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > I observed that lintian-brush is adding a file debian/upstream/metadata > if it finds the fields Upstream-Name and Upstream-Contact in > debian/copyright. > What is the sense to duplicate data that we can find in a well > established machine readable file in another file? That's a good question. I've considered (but not implemented yet) having lintian-brush not create a debian/upstream/metadata if the only upstream metadata fields it can set are the name and contact. At the moment, both the debian/copyright [1] and debian/upstream/metadata [2] standards both define two fields with (as far as I can tell) the same purpose. Neither of the standards provide any guidance as to whether the fields should be set in both files or whether e.g. one is preferred over the other. It would be great if some guidance could be added to DEP-12 about how to deal with these fields. Cheers, Jelmer [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ [2] https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep12/
lintian-brush adds redundant data
Hi, I observed that lintian-brush is adding a file debian/upstream/metadata if it finds the fields Upstream-Name and Upstream-Contact in debian/copyright. What is the sense to duplicate data that we can find in a well established machine readable file in another file? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
