[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian xml-sgml policy

On , January 18, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> Mark Johnson <mrj@debian.org> writes:
> > On , January 18, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > > Title: Debian SGML/XML Policy
> > > DDP Section: Developers' manuals
> > > Maintainer: Mark Johnson <mrj@debian.org>
> > > Contributors: Adam Di Carlo <aph@debian.org> and hopefully others
> > > Abstract: Subpolicy for Debian packages providing SGML and XML materials.
> > > CVS module name: sgml-xml-policy (?)
> > > Format: DocBook XML  (?)
> > > License: GPL (?)
> > > 
> > > Should I go ahead and create 'sgml-xml-policy' and start adding the
> > > Makefiles?
> > 
> > Sure. Get it going. And thanks for doing so.
> Do you like the CVS module name I picked?  

Sure. However, the mailing list for the LSB xml/sgml spec is
<lsb-xml-sgml@dulug.duke.edu>, where the xml precedes the sgml. 

So, maybe switch it to xml-sgml-policy. XML has already become much
more prevalent than SGML in the general world of technology, so
putting the "xml" first makes sense.

There, I've decided: please name the module xml-sgml-policy

Similarly, perhaps the title should be changed to 
   Title: Debian XML/SGML Policy  

You decide.

> Any other responses to the '(?)' items?

Shouldn't the license be the FDL? Seems to me that the FDL is the
documentation counterpart to the GPL.

   License: FDL

You should also add Ardo to the list of contributors, esp given that
he already is one.

I dunno if there are length constraints, but maybe change the Abstract
to something like:

   Abstract: Subpolicy for Debian packages that provide and/or make
             use of SGML or XML resources.

'seems a little clearer stated in this way. Your call.

> For now I would recommend just focussing on the content of the
> policy itself.

Of course I'll focus on the content. I'm so buried in bug reports and
ITPs that it's downright shameful. I gotta take care of current
problems before I take on anything more. 

> That is a lot of work.  

Yeah, I know. Remember the last round where we tried to get to LSB
compliance - phew!

> You also have a lot of package bugs, I notice, and a lot of packages
> that need updates for later upstream releases.

Er, um, can we talk about something else? 

Seriously, though, next week is for bug-fixing and updates, followed
by a few new package uploads. Very high priority for me.

> Of course, it's your time and you can do what you like...:)

And so I shall. Good thing I happen to like fixing bugs;) 

BTW, why can I no longer get a list of my bug reports via email, as in

  echo "index maint mrj@debian.org" | mail request@bugs.debian.org

Is that service no longer available?

> We're somewhat constrained by what processors are available on the
> machine that builds and updates the documentation.
> I would really request that we not worry too much about this yet, 

Agreed. Content needs to be the focus.

> but, yes, look to have flexibility in the processor we're using in
> the future.

Good answer.

Thanks Adam!

Mark Johnson        <mark@duke.edu>
Debian XML/SGML     <mrj@debian.org>
Home Page:          <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/>
GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4  89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81

Reply to: