Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On 2009-06-19, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
> +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
"And there is no plan to make it required in the future"
> +expected that tools like lintian will be modified to recommend adding
> +those information in patches. As the technical impact on package is null,
Please do not decrease the usability of lintian even further. In linitan
speak, this should be a "pedantic" tag at most.
> Structure
> ---------
I think it should be much more focused on "Please add the following
information to your patches: What it does, where you got it from, who
wrote it" and so on. and a paragraph about "This is a way of organizing
this information to present it in a nice formatted way for interested
upstreams, other distributions and other consumers of patches"
If people choose to use this new format, tools should choke/warn if there
was more foo: bar fields in the patch than in the specification.
I will have patches with headers like
qt-bugs@ issue: 123
applied: yes
http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/qt4-x11/4.5.1-2/0225-invalidate-tabbar-geometry-on-refresh.patch
for example
and more such custom headers. And that must be fully valid.
/Sune
Reply to: