On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:33AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Unfortunately that would involve violating the spec. The current > > specification requires that every paragraph be a header paragraph, a > > Files paragraph, or a License paragraph. License-Exception paragraphs > > are not allowed. Besides, when the License field in a Files paragraph > > refers to a license exception, either the field must include the full > > text of the license or a pointer to common-licenses or the short name > > followed by a license exception must be defined in a License paragraph > > --- defining the short name and license exception in separate > > standalone paragraphs is not allowed.
> Sorry for the confusion between new field and new paragraph. Still, I think > that we are spending a lot of time discussing refinements that need to > demonstrate their usefulness by being adopted independantly by a broad number > of package maintainers. > If experimentations are blocked because the current specification does not > allow unspecified types of paragraphs, how about considering to relax it ? > We already had the same issue for proposed paragraphs about removed files. There's no reason experimenting should be blocked. You can put anything you want to in debian/copyright, in any format you like - you just can't call it copyright-format 1.0. Changing the header to not claim that it *is* copyright-format 1.0 is a simple requirement. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
