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

Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines

Le Mon, Jun 15, i2009 at 06:12:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>    Title: Patch Tagging Guidelines
>    DEP: 3
>    State: DRAFT
>    Date: 2009-06-12
>    Drivers: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
>    URL: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3
>    Abstract:
>     Meta-information embedded in patches applied to Debian
>     packages

>   * `Description` (required)
>   * `Origin` (required)
>   * `Bug-<Vendor>` or `Bug` (optional)
>   * `Patch` (optional)
>   * `Commit` (optional)
>   * `Status` (optional)
>   * `Signed-off-by` (optional)

Bonjour Raphaël,

in the Debian Med packaging team, we use a similar approach for many of our packages:

 * Author (optional)
 * Description (optional)
 * Forwarded (optional)
 * License (optional)

In ‘Description’ we put everything that would be in Patch, Commit and Bug.
‘Forwarded’ sometimes uses a short/long semantic à la debian/control, where the
first line contains either ‘no’, an URL or an email address, and the following
lines an optional long comment explaining for instance why the patch has not
been forwarded.

The dh_make template for debian/copyright induces many developers to put their
packaging work under the GPL, and I have already seen packages whose license is
otherwise BSD-ish with such patches. If the maintainer suddenly goes MIA and
the patch is non-trivial, then in theory if we want to respect what is written,
we are stuck with a GPL'ed patch. Therefore, we have an optional License field
to make things crystal clear if necessary.

I guess that other teams and individual developers use other variants. Thanks
for your effort to unifiy the format. Personally, I do not mind changing our
local format for the DEP3 format as long as we have one release cycle to do it.
Some of our packages have a very slow turnover.

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: