Hi, On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 9:31 AM Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > No one uses our RFC-2822-style thing except us, and no one has tools > for it, so people are understandably quite reluctant to adopt it.
I agree with that assessment. As far as I understand the situation of DEP-5 tooling, I may now have (reluctantly) implemented in Lintian the most commonly used—and therefore the authoritative—parser for the DEP-5 format. [1] I am only aware of one other relevant implementation. [2] > it really should have been (a restricted subset of) YAML The issue with DEP-5 is not merely one of format. The standard is also not fully specified. [3] > My hope is that we can reuse standard data > in a format that upstreams will start supplying, thus reducing the amount > of Debian-specific work we need to do. There is an opinion, possibly a minority, that the purpose of the d/copyright file is to supply license information only for installable packages. [4] For sources, there are other mechanisms, such as comments or COPYRIGHT files, that are unlikely to be replaced by this or other efforts. Some folks even ship different copyright files with installables generated from the same sources. [5] Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Debian/Copyright/Dep5.pm [2] https://bugs.debian.org/1000319 [3] https://bugs.debian.org/969541 [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=672284#31 [4] https://bugs.debian.org/672284
