Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > distribution, so I don't mind if not all packages are converted, after
> > it's up to you to see if new lintian warnings annoy you enough or not to
> > live with it. :)
>
> See my comment above about this. It should be added to the introduction
> of the DEP.
Ok. I added:
--- a/web/deps/dep3.mdwn
+++ b/web/deps/dep3.mdwn
@@ -33,6 +33,17 @@ first step is to include those information in the patches when th
available so that tools like the [Patch Tracking
System](http://patch-tracking.debian.net) can display them.
+Scope and application
+---------------------
+
+The usage of this format is highly recommended but as long as it's not
+endorsed by the Debian policy, it will not be required. It is however
+expected that tools like lintian will be modified to recommend adding
+those information in patches. As the technical impact on package is null,
+there's no need to organize a time-limited transition. All maintainers
+can start using this format while doing their regular uploads, there's no
+need to upload new revisions of packages just for adding those
+information.
Structure
---------
> > > Debian: could be considered a shorthand alias for Bug-Debian maybe? I
> > > guess that could also address the above issue that i mentioned.
> >
> > See my answer to Lucas.
>
> Well, you didn't answer my point:
> > We could have Debian: for the Debian bug, and Bug-(Gnome|KDE|..) for
> > other projects.
>
> My concern is that Ubuntu already has a policy like this
> (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/PatchTaggingGuidelines). I
> would really like ours to be compatible with theirs, so patches can
> freely be copied between Ubuntu and Debian. Having a different format
> sounds like a very bad idea. Have you tried contacting the people
> involved in the Ubuntu policy? It might be possible to change it.
I did not contact them yet. I expect that they will follow the outcome of
this DEP otherwise they would have to patch lintian to support the
differing field and it seems counter-productive.
I am perfectly aware that this DEP is not 100% compatible to their format
and this field is only one difference, there are others (the
way we handle the DebianSpecific tagging). So I'm not sure that we have to
do something special here.
Anyway, I'll send them a mail so that they can state their opinion here.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/
Reply to: