Dear Lars and everybody, here are two answers and a proposition for editorial changes.
> * Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements > verbatim, including the word "Copyright" or c-in-a-circle or whatever? Given that the upstream authors are somtimes themselves inconsistent, this would probably give extra work and possilibities of failure to the Debian package maintainer. I think that the current draft is good as it is. > Would everyone be OK if I change it to say "First line: > an abbreviated name for the license, or expression giving alternatives > (see *Short names* section for a list of standard abbreviations)." > instead? I support this change. > The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left > for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX > compatibility. It is great to see the end of the tunnel ! Thank you for your perseverance. I would like to propose a couple of last editorial changes. I have worked on Policy's section 5.1, that defines the syntax of control files. The patch I submitted was alredy seconded by two developers (#593909), and I expect it to be applied in the future. It brings some clarifications on the syntax of the fields, where three types are defined: simple, folded and multiline. I propose to add this information to the DEP: Field types =========== @@ -85,12 +85,13 @@ for details. There are four kinds values for fields. Each field specifies which -kind is allowed. +kind is allowed. The field type is indicated in parenthesis, according +to Policy's §5.1. -* Single-line values. -* White space separated lists. -* Line based lists. -* Text formatted like package long descriptions. +* Single-line values (simple). +* White space separated lists (folded). +* Line based lists (multiline). +* Formatted text like package long descriptions (multiline). A single-line value means that the whole value of a field must fit on a single line. For example, the `Format` field has a single line value In the above patch, I also changed ‘Text formatted’ by ‘Formatted text’, which is more consistent with the text that follows in the DEP. Redundancy with Policy ====================== The Policy already disallows to use a field more than once in a paragraph. Perhaps that can then be removed from the DEP? @@ -114,8 +115,6 @@ For example, `Disclaimer` has no special first line, whereas `License` does. -Each field may occur at most once in a paragraph. - # Implementation ## Paragraps ### Header paragraph (Once) RFC (2)822 ========== The most up to date version is 5322: @@ -139,7 +138,7 @@ * Syntax: line based list * The preferred address(es) to reach the upstream project. May be free-form text, but by convention - will usually be written as a list of RFC2822 addresses or URIs. + will usually be written as a list of RFC5322 addresses or URIs. * **`Source`** * Required Pseudo-RFC format ? =================== The example in the DEP is in DEP format :) I propose to remove mention of pseud-RFC-822 format. RFC-822 parser can not parse the DEP, and our main source of inspiration is the Debian control files. @@ -545,7 +544,7 @@ ## Implementation -### Examples in pseudo-RFC-822 format +### Examples #### Simple A possible `copyright` file for the program 'X Solitaire' distributed in the Debian source package `xsol`: Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20101114035912.gd4...@merveille.plessy.net