> On 12-08-22 at 09:39am, Paul Wise wrote: > > > > In comparison to the current method for repacking (debian/rules > > get-orig-source), this doesn't allow per-file-set comments about why > > the file-set is being removed. I often use this to document in more > > detail why I am removing files. So I view this spec as a downgrade > > from what we have now. >
Le Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:09:38AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > So would be nice to check that the implementation properly includes all > of the following items: > > Format: > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > Source: http://susy.oddbird.net/ > Repackaged, excluding non-DFSG licensed fonts and source-less > JavaScript > Files-Excluded: > docs/source/javascripts/jquery-1.7.1.min.js > docs/source/javascripts/modernizr-2.5.3.min.js > Files-Excluded-comment: Exlude source-less JavaScript > Files-Excluded: foo/bar > docs/source/fonts/* > baz > boom/boom/ > Files-Excluded-comment: Exlude non-DFSG licensed fonts and more > Just for demonstration purpose, this paragraph has multiple > lines. Hi all, a paragraph must not contain multiple instances of the same field. Perhaps the example above suggests that the Files-Excluded field is not well suited for the header paragraph ? In that case, even if the current specification does not allow it, maybe you can explore the possibility to make Files-Excluded paragraphs, like in the following: Files-Excluded: docs/source/javascripts/jquery-1.7.1.min.js docs/source/javascripts/modernizr-2.5.3.min.js Comment: Exlude source-less JavaScript Files-Excluded: foo/bar docs/source/fonts/* baz boom/boom/ Comment: Exlude non-DFSG licensed fonts and more Just for demonstration purpose, this paragraph has multiple lines. This will only cause problems if existing parsers are detecting paragraph type by exclusion, like for instance inferring that a paragraph is a stand-alone License paragraph because 1) it is not a Header paragraph and 2) it does not contain a Files field. I also think that the current proposal would be a good opportunity to transfer the information about source location and excluded files in a separate file that would be parsed by uscan and others, and which format would be easier than debian/watch. However, for the moment packages.debian.org or the PTS do not display arbitrary information from files in the source packages, so the easiest way to present the information to our users is through the Debian copyright file. Altogether, no solution is entirely satisfactory. Things may become easier once we have a solid distribution of all our package metadata, both on-line and as an off-line copy for the roaming or disconnected systems. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120825040303.ge2...@falafel.plessy.net
