On 2009-06-19, Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> wrote: > +Scope and application > +--------------------- > + > +The usage of this format is highly recommended but as long as it's not > +endorsed by the Debian policy, it will not be required. It is however
"And there is no plan to make it required in the future" > +expected that tools like lintian will be modified to recommend adding > +those information in patches. As the technical impact on package is null, Please do not decrease the usability of lintian even further. In linitan speak, this should be a "pedantic" tag at most. > Structure > --------- I think it should be much more focused on "Please add the following information to your patches: What it does, where you got it from, who wrote it" and so on. and a paragraph about "This is a way of organizing this information to present it in a nice formatted way for interested upstreams, other distributions and other consumers of patches" If people choose to use this new format, tools should choke/warn if there was more foo: bar fields in the patch than in the specification. I will have patches with headers like qt-bugs@ issue: 123 applied: yes http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/qt4-x11/4.5.1-2/0225-invalidate-tabbar-geometry-on-refresh.patch for example and more such custom headers. And that must be fully valid. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
