On to, 2010-08-19 at 10:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > my presonal point of view about fields in this DEP is that they should be > required only if they are strictly necessary, and mentionned as optional only > if there is a reasonable plan to parse and exploit the data. > > I am not aware of a requirement from the Policy or Joerg's message on > debian-devel-announce in March 2006 for listing the package name in > debian/copyright. Similarly, although it is required to list all authors of a > packaged work, there is no requirement to list the upstream maintainer. > Therefore, I think that the fields should be optional if they are not removed.
I don't think they're required by Policy or the ftpmasters. At least the pkg-perl team is using Maintainer/Upstream-Contact. I don't think they use Name/Upstream-Name. It's reasonable to expect the package description to mention the upstream name if it differs from the Debian package name, and that would make Upstream-Name somewhat unnecessary. If pkg-perl, and perhaps others, are going to be using a field to keep track of the upstream contact information anyway, it makes sense to have a standard way of doing that. So I'd like to keep Upstream-Contact. Anyone else have an opinion on this? That is, should we drop Upstream-Name or not? Anyone opposed to keeping Upstream-Contact? (The fields will, obviously, be optional, if we keep them in the spec.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1282188247.12989.242.ca...@havelock
