Frank Lin PIAT <fp...@klabs.be> writes: > On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:17 +0000, Bart Martens wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> > >> > The real problem with DEP5 is not the format (which is not worse for a >> > small package than the current one), it is with the unrealistic amount >> > of information that it requires to fill and maintain. >> > [..] >> > >> > So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and >> > only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? [..] >> >> I agree with this "let's get real". > +1 >> I would even go further: The focus should be less on making it easier for >> machines to read debian/copyright and more on machines generating a >> human-readable debian/copyright. > > I believe it is very important to have machine parseable list of > license. > For instance, lintian/apt/dpkg/$whatever could check "Package Foo > (license Apache) depends on the library Bar (license GPL)" > For that to work, you'd have to somehow indicate which files' licenses are going to be relevant to which binary package. For instance, many packages have (parts of the) build-system machinery GPL'd (e.g. the ltmain.sh from libtool is GPL-2+), but the rest of the package uses a laxer license (e.g. LGPL).
I don't see this addressed in any way in the current DEP-5 text. Maybe it'd be better to get rid of the `Files:' field, and replace it by `Package:', indicating the binary package the license (and copyright information) applies to? The way I see it, debian/copyright is about binary packages, as for source packages we already comply with license terms by distributing the full upstream tarball (modulo DSFG-related stripping, which is not relevant in this context). Regards, Rotty -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
