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

Re: DEP-5 format definition hell

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> Hi,
> I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
> hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
> the copyright file is complete I don't think this fulfills the goal of
> this DEP.
> It would be nice if the involved people would clarify what should be
> used. So far I've seen the following referenced:
> a) SVN revisions of the mdwn file (seems to be ok)

IMHO this is the preferred (and the only correct) format - there was
a revision of DEP-5 itself that changed the examples to use that after
some discussion.

However, as pointed out in a follow-up, the URL itself might need to
be changed after the Alioth migration... and time will show what it
needs to be changed *to* :)

> b) http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ (seems to be not that wrong but
>    exactly this current document claims that a revision of the mdwn file
>    should be used)

Hm, does it really?  Yes, it used to - but I think it doesn't right now.
(see the description of the Format header)

> c) a wiki page (rejected that one, seems wrong to me)

This used to be correct during the initial discussion of the idea of
machine-readable copyright files; it became incorrect the moment
DEP 5 was created as such :)

> d) broken links (obviously rejected)

True, that :)


Peter Pentchev	roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org peter@packetscale.com
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
What would this sentence be like if it weren't self-referential?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: