Re: debian xml-sgml policy
On , January 18, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> Mark Johnson <email@example.com> writes:
> > On , January 18, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > > Title: Debian SGML/XML Policy
> > > DDP Section: Developers' manuals
> > > Maintainer: Mark Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Contributors: Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com> 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
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, 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
> 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.
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 email@example.com" | mail firstname.lastname@example.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.
Mark Johnson <email@example.com>
Debian XML/SGML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Home Page: <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/>
GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4 89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81