Bug#609160: debian-policy: include DEP5
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ke, 2011-03-02 at 03:33 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
>> version, makes sense to me. Anyway, getting any version ready to
>> include in the VCS (on a branch) seems worthwhile to me, and after
>> that, updating should be easy.
> I don't think it makes sense to update to an intermediate version.
> Keeping two versions of the draft up to date is not something that I
> find a good use of my time, I'm afraid.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that updating to the final version
when it's ready should be easy.
> Then I'll wait until someone who actually knows tells me the proper
Russ Allbery, active policy maintainer and currently swamped,
certainly knows. He wrote the following, which can be found
earlier in this bug log:
I admit I'm not particularly thrilled about either of those
options; DebianDoc is fairly deprecated at this point, and
while Markdown is a lot simpler and easier to manage, adding a
third markup language, as mentioned, does raise the barrier of
entry a bit.
My long-term hope was still that we could all eventually move
to Docbook, but I've had zero time to work on that (or
anything else related to Policy lately).
I was only using common sense from there (since the topic seemed to be
stuck). If an authority is really needed to move things forward,
maybe Bill can help?
> It's unfortunate that docbook (in any flavor) is so tedious to work
> with, both at the level of writing markup and the level of producing
> readable formats from the markup. If it is absolutely necessary, I'll
> use that, but I think it is a mistake for debian-policy to adopt docbook
> in any form.
What do you propose instead? I think the problem seen with markdown
and its kin was that it is possible to accidentally trigger formatting
rules when talking about, say, the result from "echo `echo hi`".
That's not normally a big deal but it was mentioned as a possible
problem when you are writing a document that is meant to be normative.
> Perhaps it'd be easier to just use debiandoc for DEP5, for now.
Sure, that's why I presented both options. Personally, I just want
to see this get done.