Hello, On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:01:51 +0200 Gergely Nagy <alger...@madhouse-project.org> wrote:
> On one hand, some sponsors prefer DEP5, and wouldn't spend time > looking at non-DEP5 sponsor requests (I'm one of these, see my other > reasons further along). If a prospective sponsor prefers DEP5, I have nothing against that; that may be a reason to do the conversion. Or a really complicated copyright/license situation can be (see forever unfinished libnatspec packaging, even incomplete DEP5-alike debian/copyright was long enough). > The main reason I prefer DEP5 is because it pretty much forces one to > look through the licenses and copythights THROUGHLY, which makes both > my job easier when reviewing, and the ftpmaster's job when they > process the package through NEW. Being machine-readable is a good > thing too, but the main selling point of DEP5 for me is its > granularity. It's not a matter of format, one can skip all the licenses in DEP5, or specify everything needed in a plain human-readable (!) text file. > So many times I've seen copyrights and licenses missed in a > debian/copyright file, because one did not look further than the top > level LICENSE file... DEP5 makes one dig deeper. Of course, one can do > that without the format, but.. if you're going through it all > throughly, and documenting it anyway... might as well do so in a > format that's standardized in Debian Policy. It doesn't really, because it's just a format. > So I would strongly urge you to reconsider, and use DEP5. In the long > run, I believe it's worth the effort. Currently, it's a DEP5-like thing, but more human-readable. Easy to convert, if needed, and still easily machine-greppable when needed. P.S. Maybe we need some kind of d/copyright re-formatter, which would parse DEP5 files and display their contents in real plain text which doesn't 'kill all humans'? :) -- WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
