On ti, 2010-09-14 at 17:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: > > > Makes sense to me. > > > Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now. > > > I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source not > > being "pristine" in the sense that the form as redistributed by Debian is > > different from how it was distributed by upstream. > > > With this I mean that it should *both* cover cases of repackaging a > > tarball *and* generating a tarball from e.g. a checkout from an upstream > > VCS. > > > Suggested filed name: > > > Source-Repackaged-Reason: > > We already have a field for this purpose, namely Source. The only reason > why we can't use it is because it's currently only allowed to contain > URLs. So what about, instead, broadening the syntax of Source to say that > it contains *either* a space-separated list of URLs for the simple case of > reusing an upstream release tarball available from some URL *or* freeform > text describing where the source came from. > > I don't think it's horribly important that the URLs in Source be > machine-extractable, since that purpose is already served well by > debian/watch. The field is primarily meant for humans anyway.
Good point about debian/watch. The simplest proposal right now is to make the Source field free-form text, and since I like simplicity, I support this. More detailed specification for documenting mechanical rules of transformations could wait until there's real experience of using this spec in the real world for this. Anyone opposed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1284540328.2573.65.ca...@havelock
