On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:39:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
3) License text will contain leading spaces.
In debian/control's Description field, the field value keeps the
leading space of the line, but the description is later wrapped again
unless
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
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 02:00:21PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Maybe an improvement could be to clarify that verbatim do not mean
as-is, only word-for-word.
But verbatim *means* word-for-word. Does it mean something else in
Danish, or did a dictionary lead you to believe it had a different
Steve Langasek, dimanche 15 août 2010, 11:47:53 CEST
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 02:00:21PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Maybe an improvement could be to clarify that verbatim do not mean
as-is, only word-for-word.
But verbatim *means* word-for-word. Does it mean something else in
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
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
Le Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:08:47AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
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
Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:18:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I would prefer to stick to a Debian control file format, since otherwise
implementing DEP-5 aware checks in tools like Lintian is going to be more
painful than it needs to be.
I will come back with my favorite deviation of the
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:18:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I would prefer to stick to a Debian control file format, since
otherwise implementing DEP-5 aware checks in tools like Lintian is
going to be more painful than it needs to be.
I will
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Proliferation of file formats is a bug, not a feature, when you're trying
to make things readable by software.
Indeed.
I believe most of these issues are already addressed by referring to the
syntax description in Policy with the
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
(The existing
section is giving requirements for the syntax of the file, such as
human-readability, which was appropriate at the beginning of the
development of the spec, but I think we don't need that in the spec
anymore.)
-The `debian/copyright` file must be
On la, 2010-08-14 at 15:05 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
-The `debian/copyright` file must be machine-interpretable, yet
-human-readable, while communicating all mandated upstream information,
-copyright notices and licensing details.
The rest is good, but I like that
Le Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:16:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Ideally, though, you should be able to just reference
the specification of the Debian control file format in Policy. Any
deficiencies in that specification that lead you to want to add additional
information in DEP-5 for the
12 matches
Mail list logo
