Re: RFC round 3: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009, James Westby wrote:
> To my reading it is not clear whether this is valid:
> # Description: ...
> and I think it should be.
It is valid. That's the whole point of supporting fields inside shell
comments (and the reason why shebang lines are allowed before the fields).
> Also, can you use "#" comments if it isn't a dpatch file? I can
> imagine that some would write it like that for other patch formats.
Yes, dpatch is only quoted as an example.
Feel free to improve the wording to make it clearer.
> Is it worth advising that lines be < 80 characters (including
> "Description: ")?
> > one should simply indicate the URL where the patch got grabbed
> "one should simply indicate the URL where the patch was taken from" is
> less colloquial English.
> > Bug-<Vendor> or Bug (optional)
> I think your reasoning behind this is good, however, without a list of
> vendors is there going to be a problem with consistency in the Vendors?
I don't know. We can add an appendix listing most common vendor names
corresponding to all major linux distributions. Not sure it's needed.
> Is it Bug-Debian or Bug-debian? Should we just specify that parsers
> should compare the vendors in a case-insensitive manner when they do so,
> and assume that there aren't two names for a distribution?
It should be case-insensitive yes. The dpkg-vendor tool already handles
those names in a (mostly) case-insensitive way.
> > Author (optional)
> Can be given multiple times I assume? That should be explicit as the way
> to handle multiple authors.
> > This field can be used to record the date when the meta-information
> > have been last updated.
> "was last updated" is more usual English.
> What do you see as the use for this? Is it just informational?
Yes, it's for the maintainer so that he knows last time he verified
that the meta-information are still up-to-date.
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :