Bug#609160: debian-policy: include DEP5
- To: Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi>
- Cc: 609160@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#609160: debian-policy: include DEP5
- From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:41:28 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20110828074128.GA526@merveille.plessy.net>
- Reply-to: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>, 609160@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <1302673581.2921.1.camel@havelock.liw.fi>
- References: <1294350557.20273.14.camel@havelock.lan> <20110107133724.GA28844@merveille.plessy.net> <20110302011357.GB12046@elie> <20110306081247.GA4827@merveille.plessy.net> <1302372977.2441.86.camel@havelock.liw.fi> <20110413014947.GD10140@merveille.plessy.net> <1302673581.2921.1.camel@havelock.liw.fi>
Le Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 06:46:21AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> On ke, 2011-04-13 at 10:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:16:17PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> > >
> > > Attached please find my changes to the docbook conversion.
> > >
> > > * remove drivers from abstract (we're mentioned in acks, which is
> > > enough)
> > > * a couple of missing spaces from markup
> > > * removal of useless appendix (this was in dep svn already, so better do
> > > it in the version in policy too)
> >
> > Would you consider this attached patch as well, that we discussed earlier in
> > November, and that was waiting for #593909 to be applied to the Policy ?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/20101114035912.GD4949@merveille.plessy.net
>
> I am reluctantly ok with it. I am reluctant because I would like to as
> little change in the spec as possible anymore, not because of any aspect
> of the patch itself.
Dear Lars and everybody,
given that DEP 5 is still in the CANDIDATE state, and given that the change is
not normative, I was wondering if the patch I sent in November 2011, reproduced
below for your convenience, could be applied in the end.
@@ -85,12 +85,13 @@
for details.
There are four kinds values for fields. Each field specifies which
-kind is allowed.
+kind is allowed. The field type is indicated in parenthesis, according
+to Policy's §5.1.
-* Single-line values.
-* White space separated lists.
-* Line based lists.
-* Text formatted like package long descriptions.
+* Single-line values (simple).
+* White space separated lists (folded).
+* Line based lists (multiline).
+* Formatted text like package long descriptions (multiline).
A single-line value means that the whole value of a field must fit on
a single line. For example, the `Format` field has a single line value
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: