On ma, 2011-01-10 at 10:56 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > So, the only timeframe during which the problem can be experienced is > from now to the solution of #609160. I wonder if it is really worth to > address this issue properly---by changing either the intended usage of > Format: or by adding a separate Format-Version: field. My take is that > it is not worth, we can just rely on implementations to bail out on out > of date debian/copyright instances. YMMV, of course.
Oh, please, not more fields... :) If a distinct Format: URL is deemed necessary for the revisions from now until integration into the debian-policy package, then let's have that. I would rather avoid it, though, since then the examples need to be updated every time, and I'm lazy. (Once in debian-policy, the Format: URL will have a version number, so the problem will be solved.) I have no idea when the debian-policy integration will happen, but I hope soon -- at least in terms of the number of revisions of DEP5 we produce until then. -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1294853308.6791.35.ca...@havelock.lan