Re: Syntax issues in Policy Manual

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Is this a more general pattern that could be described in one place,
> > and referenced from multiple parts of the policy? I would like to
> > see some of the ‘debian/control’ fields, such as the dependency
> > fields, permitted (though not required) to use this
> > multi-line-with-first-line-empty syntax.
> 
> Well, any field that can span multiple lines with no special syntax is
> *allowed* to do this, including the dependency fields in
> debian/control.

Right, but in my view it's one of exactly two “correct” forms for such a
field:

    Foo-Field: spam, eggs, beans

    Foo-Field:
        spam,
        eggs,
        beans

I would like the latter form recorded in policy as good form for
multi-line fields. The proximal motivation for this is the Lintian check
that results in the ‘debian-control-has-unusual-field-spacing’ tag.

I agree the check is good (at ‘pedantic’ level), and that it should
report deviations from Policy; but since the latter example above uses a
form that is good elsewhere in Policy, I would like to see this form
explicitly supported for such fields.

-- 
 \                “Please to bathe inside the tub.” —hotel room, Japan |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney