On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:12:54AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Bart Martens wrote: > > Bob Proulx wrote: > > > Bart Martens wrote: > > > > The file debian/copyright "should name the original authors", and > > > > David Keppel is such an author. > > I have looked through many copyright files and do not see one that > does this. See for example this one along with many others: > > /usr/share/doc/gawk/copyright > > Of course that doesn't mean there aren't others that do. I would > welcome an example to follow. I just haven't found any.
I don't know any example in DEP5 or copyright-format/1.0. > Nor does it > mean that it isn't the right thing to do. Maybe the outcome of bug 678607 will be to no longer list the authors. > Although philosophically I > am not sure of the need for it since anyone looking for authors would > look in the AUTHORS file which is the canonical location for that > information, at least for GNU programs. I agree with that. > > > > Thank you for taking the time to look at the copyright file in detail. > > > I admit the new DEP5 format confuses me. > > > > Me too. > > :-) > > > > Where would I find such a statement in the documentation? > > To answer my own question it is stated here: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile > > In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources > (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors. > > So definitely stated by Policy the original authors must be named. Yes. > > > > How would this be defined in the file? How would we comply with > > > that statement within the restrictions of the above documentation? > > > > No idea. > > After doing more research and without any other input I think the only > thing that makes sense is to include the information in the free-form > Comment: block. Seems OK to me. > I don't find any other packages doing this (would > welcome an example) I don't know any example in DEP5 or copyright-format/1.0. > but it would definitely seem to be required by the > spirit of Policy 12.5 Yes. > and there doesn't seem to be any other place to > put it in the DEP5 format. No idea. > > > > The copyright holder is of course the FSF. That is the copyright > > > statement listed in each of the files. > > > > > > Should I list the original authors in a Comment: field? I see no > > > other way. Help! > > > > No idea. > > I think putting this in a Comment: field about the only acceptable > solution that I can see that meets all of the (conflicting) > requirements. It would conform to debian-policy. > > > Note that DEP5 is not mandatory. Plain text is OK for policy. What > > motivated > > you to switch to DEP5 ? > > There are several facets. First is that since the package needs to be > sponsored it means that every sponsor will have their own pet peeves > and requests. Generally this means that everything must be of the > newest features. You never know what a sponsor will ask for. (Or > sometimes it must be of an older feature!) I understand that it is not easy for package maintainers to deal with different sponsoring styles. > DEP5 is one of Debian's > new features and therefore to get a package through sponsorship it > pretty much needs to have it. DEP5 is not required for packages I sponsor, although I don't mind that DEP5 is used. The package maintainer can choose, in my opinion. I find plain text format much easier for everyone, but it's not my choice to make. > See for example the request to move to > quilt instead of using the previous diff.gz format. I don't remember asking that. I guess someone else asked that. > Also the request > to use the newest compat level which arrived during the updating of > this package. I don't remember asking that. I guess someone else asked that. > Before Sandro offerred to help I had started > conversations with two other DDs for this package. Since I am > completely at the mercy of a sponsor when they say jump I can only ask > how high and try my best to comply. I understand that it is not easy for package maintainers to deal with different sponsoring styles. > Although there was no specific > request for DEP5 there were requests to update the copyright file. Yes, I remember things I said about completing the copyright file. :-) > > And secondly in the maintainers guide it specifically calls out DEP5 > format. > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html > 4.2. copyright > This file contains information about the copyright and license of the > upstream sources. Debian Policy Manual, 12.5 "Copyright information" > dictates its content and DEP-5: Machine-parseable debian/copyright > provides guidelines for its format. Thanks for quoting that. > > I didn't read "Policy 12.5.1 Machine-readable copyright information" > which states that the format is optional until just now. I didn't > realize it was optional. It is easy to overlook such parts in the documentation. So much to read. > And therefore I was and have been giving it > my best shot. That is obviously good. > Thanks for all of your help! My pleasure. Back to the "time" package itself. Is this your newest version of "time" you are requesting sponsorship for ? Or do you want to update it first ? http://www.proulx.com/~bob/debian/pool/sid/main/time/2012-06-22/time_1.7-24.dsc Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623122446.gk32...@master.debian.org
