On 20.09.2014 16:00, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2014-09-20 13:02, Markus Koschany wrote: >> On 20.09.2014 09:57, Tobias Frost wrote: >>> My reasoning is, that because of every data package has its own >>> orig.tar, they need to be crafted in a way to so that they will >>> be -- individually looked at -- reach Debian quality requirements. > > To expand on this, try to see this from a contributor's POV. > > Say I use ufoai (I do, actually ;-) ), and say I find a bug in the > ufoai-music package. A common way to contribute would `apt-get source > ufoai-music`, and the produce a patch, or debdiff, or whatever.
I didn't know the unreleased package had already its first user. Be welcome. Of course you can still do apt-get source ufoai-music. Nothing prevents you from doing that. > Say the Security Team wants to upload a security fix for an issue with > ufoai, then they should be able to do so by just getting its source. The security team will then work on src:ufoai for sure because it contains the complete source code. src:ufoai-music contains only music and sound files. It is unrealistic to believe that they will ever make a security upload for ogg files. > Note that these are purely hypothetical examples that are probably not > relevant to ufoai (in total), they serve just to emphasize why it's > important to not just look at a set of (source) packages as a whole, but > also invidually. I feel your hypothetical examples don't reflect the reality for a game like UFO:AI. The place where you can find the get-orig-source targets is documented and if you really consider contributing to UFO:AI, I'd like to ask you to study src:ufoai as well. [...] >> In my opinion we are in full compliance with >> Debian's Policy because >> >> - we state in d/copyright that the game data was split due to technical >> reasons >> - we use a reproducible and convenient way to determine all copyright >> information. > > Here's an example for where I see problems with the split: the script to > reproduce the copyright information for ufoai-music is in ufoai, so just > getting ufoai-music's source alone does not help me here. That's why debian/copyright says you can find the ufoai_copyright.py in src:ufoai. It is a helper script and nothing more. >> - the copyright file is machine-readable and every file in each source >> package is covered by an license paragraph in debian/copyright. >> >> Thus the whole copyright file is accurate. > > When, in source package $source, you are claiming copyright for a > non-existing file, then that information -- minor issue as it may be -- > is most certainly not accurate. If I really want an information about the licensing of a certain file I can retrieve it rather easily by looking at debian/copyright be it in the ufoai-data, ufoai-music or ufoai-maps package. A machine would simply ignore those "non-existing" files and still find the matching files in the related source package. A human being would even understand that the same copyright file covers three source packages which are a logic entity but were split due to technical reasons. I understand that you think that makes the copyright file "not accurate" whereas I think we just create a lot of busywork. Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
