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 :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev firstname.lastname@example.org roam@FreeBSD.org email@example.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?
Description: Digital signature