On la, 2010-08-14 at 21:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > This raises something else I was thinking about. I believe that technical > DEPs, if adopted, should move into the debian-policy package for further > maintenance.
I agree with this, with both my DEP-5 and DEP-0 hats on. (It's cold in Wellington, so two hats is appropriate.) > > 2) The Policy does not describe the DEP syntax for escaping empty lines. > > > Policy §5.1 does not describe the mechanism of using a space plus a dot > > to escape empty lines in field values, but we can not refer simply to > > §5.6.13 (Description) because the DEP-5 License field is verbatim, > > whereas the debian/control Description filed requires an additional > > space to signal verbatim sections. > > Yes, this should be described in DEP-5. I propose, in the description of the License field: * Remaining lines: Each non-empty line of the license text should be prefixed by a single space or TAB character. Empty lines should be replaced with a line consisting of a space or TAB followed by a period. (Empty lines lines contain nothing, or only whitespace characters.) If a debian/copyright file is formatted for display, the license text is not expected to be word-wrapped, but displayed as if it were program code, so that license text that uses one of the many conventions for plain text formatting will display OK. -- 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/1281892127.5840.187.ca...@havelock