Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > This means that when using a debian/watch file one has to duplicate > the information in two places, with the possibility of this getting > out-of-sync, etc.
> In addition the machine readable debian/copyright format, specifies > the Source field as optional, which could perhaps be interpreted as > contradict what policy says. > IMO, ideally the requirement in policy would be lifted by clarifying > that the information should be provided in *either* debian/copyright > or debian/watch. Personally, I usually find they're not the same thing. debian/watch wants a very specific technical URL (the path to the download location), whereas I usually use the Source file to specify a higher-level view of the project. That's not an argument against your point that this is duplicative; it's just that I find Source to more normally duplicate Homepage in debian/control than duplicate debian/watch. Anyway, I have also found this an odd fit for debian/copyright if one views debian/copyright as being for the legally-mandated notices plus license information for Debian package users. I suspect that it's a combination of that Policy text predating both Homepage and uscan. I'm in favor of dropping this information from debian/copyright and instead writing some language saying that packages should include this information in Homepage in debian/control and, if there's a substantial non-obvious difference between the package home page and how to download it, put download information in debian/watch. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
