Re: Patch format
Le Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:49:22PM +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > > Can we standardize the patch header? Be it quilt, dpatch, $foo, the header
> > > might be something like:
> > >
> > > Author:
> > > Forwarded:
> > > Description:
OK, so let's settle on:
Author: Name <email>
Forwarded: no | URL | email
If not forwarded, explanation is provided in the subsequent lines.
Description: executive summary.
Longer description possible but optional.
License: Same as <upsream program> itself. (optional)
It may be necessary to clarify the license of the patch. I have seen
some packages where the Debian packaging is GPL but the upstream program
non-copyleft (BSD, ...). If we take debian/copyright machine-readably,
in these packages debian/patches/* would be GPL unless specified
otherwise, which can be unwelcome when upstream chose a more permissive
license. (Of course we know that trivial works are not subjected to
copyright, but it is always better to avoid misunderstandings).
In the end I recommend to use the same license as the upstream sources
for the packaging work, unless they are weird or borderline.
PS: and let's follow the opinion of Daniel to not encode the status of
the patch in its name.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wakō, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: