Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > I'm opposed to this change as proposed because it means that we can > have packages without any hint as to where the upstream source came > from (since Homepage is not required).
I'm opposed to the change having anything to do with the Homepage field, since even when Homepage is used, that value is frequently not sufficient to identify the location of the upstream source. The control file Homepage field is recording a different fact from the copyright Source field. One does not depend on the other, and when they happen to be the same that's incidental. > I think it might be okay to make the indication of the origin of the > upstream source in debian/copyright optional *if* Homepage clearly > provides the same information for that package. I'm more sympathetic to that position. But it seems akin to arguing that the maintainer in Debian and the upstream contact might be the same person; perhaps true, but that shouldn't argue against recording the two distinct facts in the appropriate places. -- \ “Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not | `\ happen at all. The conscientious historian will correct these | _o__) defects.” —Mark Twain, _A Horse's Tale_ | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bp3h8d7x....@benfinney.id.au
