Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Of course, the other issue that this DEP raises is how much sense it >> makes to put all this stuff in the source package, either in >> debian/control or in a new file, given that most of these fields (even >> including Maintainer, although moving that probably isn't a good idea) >> can change independent of any functional change in the source package. > That sounds like you maybe want DEP-2: > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep2/ Not really. DEP-2 only addresses one part of my point, and proposes a very specific solution to that problem. I'd be happy to see DEP-2 happen, certainly. But I wouldn't want to block this discussion on the implementation of a comprehensive infrastructure that does all the things discussed in DEP-2. My point, rather, is that a bunch of the stuff that's being discussed as relevant to debian/upstream can change independent of any functional change in the package, and therefore the proposal raises the question of whether we want to put even more non-functional metadata directly into the source package instead of somewhere with lighter-weight update processes. I think this is particularly relevant to any information that isn't specific to a particular upstream version of the package. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- 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/87a9spsrd5....@windlord.stanford.edu
