[sorry, this got stuck in my drafts folder] Dear Nicholas,
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:26:44PM -0700, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Thank you again for your patience and extra help! No problem. I hope that this was educational for you as a new DM -- that's probably more important than the updated package. > > > Ah! Yes, this is the spec that addresses my question to #3. That > > > said, in the past some of my other work on d/copyright has been said > > > to be "worse than useless" even though it adhered to the spec, and > > > even though it seemed to reflect what I saw reading the packages > > > COPYING file, in addition to spending a while reading VCS commits for > > > stuff I wasn't sure about. This has led me to wonder about the tribal > > > rules that are not in the spec... > > > > Could you give me an example of a rule like that? > > It'll take time to dig up examples from my backups, so I'll need to > defer concrete examples until something like mid February. It might > be stuff like my failure to identify a package that is following DEP-5 > vs SPDX, but because of comments like "worst than useless" I figured > there must have been some rule I didn't understand...because that's > way too strong of a reaction for something that is a question of > style. :-) At this point, however, I don't think further discussion > fits into this thread, because it is too tangential to muse-el. Okay. Probably best to address you question to the d-mentors list. > By the way, is one space indentation for copyright definition blocks > what should now be used (commit > 5ba94789a7f35d5938d88226c6ea35fd98635a5b)? I noticed the packaging > guide's example uses one space, but most of the copyright-format/1.0 > packages I've looked at use four. Just a convention? I've only seen it done with a single space. If it works with more than one, fine. > > > Would you please check to see if my latest commit to d/copyright > > > is ok? It's what makes the most sense to me. As far as I can > > > tell, it might be problematic because it infers that Eric Marsden > > > changed cgi.el in 2003. If it's problematic I'll revert it, then > > > dch -r. > > > > No, it doesn't actually imply that Marsden changed that file in 2004 > > (the spec does explain this!). > > Ah, from packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0 "Not all copyright > notices may apply to every individual file, and years of publication > for one copyright holder may be gathered together" [1]. So short form > rules I misunderstood are: > > * Wildcards are hungry globs. > * Lists of files are white-space, tab, or newline separated strings. > * Years may be specified as either a comma-separated list of discrete > years, or a year-to-year range. > * Refer to individual files or VCS for specific dates when multiple > files are grouped, because [1]. I don't know whether this list is an accurate list of what you misunderstood, but the four bullet points are true of the format :) > I also wonder how many contributors there must be to justify a > "Primary copyright holder, and others" statement, and also if one > needs to do VCS archaeology to find and list all of the potential > one-off contributors. That's beyond my knowledge, I'm afraid. You might want to ask d-legal. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
