On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:03:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Pointing to particular revisions is ugly, but is less ugly IMHO than > introducing (again) the possibility of multiple incompatible specs > (subtly or otherwise) all referred to with the same "Format" > declaration.
That is correct and this thought has bothered me as well. However, how
is it any different than, say, the format of debian/changelog? Unlike
the format of debian/control, not even a Standards-Version field is
associated to it. There is just software that deal with it that will
fail upon some (incompatible) format change.
Arguably, once DEP5 will be integrated into debian-policy, one might
consider the format of debian/copyright to be subject of
Standards-Version (if and only if the maintainer will have chosen to go
the readable debian/copyright way).
So, the only timeframe during which the problem can be experienced is
from now to the solution of #609160. I wonder if it is really worth to
address this issue properly---by changing either the intended usage of
Format: or by adding a separate Format-Version: field. My take is that
it is not worth, we can just rely on implementations to bail out on out
of date debian/copyright instances. YMMV, of course.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
