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

Bug#679326: debian-policy: DMUA should covered more explicitly



On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 09:59:37 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> This patch creates a new subsection for obsoleted fields.  Alternatively
> we can concentrate the information where it is, in 5.6.25.  Deleting it
> would cause some other sub-subsections to be renumbered, so I think that
> it is better to avoid.

I'd prefer to not see the original sub-section left there, but
renumbering is indeed not desirable; this could probably be removed
once the switch to docbook.

> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 5760a3f..75333b2 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2649,7 +2649,6 @@ Package: libc6
>  	    <item><qref id="f-Source"><tt>Source</tt></qref> (mandatory)</item>
>  	    <item><qref id="f-Maintainer"><tt>Maintainer</tt></qref> (mandatory)</item>
>  	    <item><qref id="f-Uploaders"><tt>Uploaders</tt></qref></item>
> -	    <item><qref id="f-DM-Upload-Allowed"><tt>DM-Upload-Allowed</tt></qref></item>
>  	    <item><qref id="f-Section"><tt>Section</tt></qref> (recommended)</item>
>  	    <item><qref id="f-Priority"><tt>Priority</tt></qref> (recommended)</item>
>  	    <item><qref id="sourcebinarydeps"><tt>Build-Depends</tt> et al</qref></item>
> @@ -2748,7 +2747,6 @@ Package: libc6
>  	  <item><qref id="f-Version"><tt>Version</tt></qref> (mandatory)</item>
>  	  <item><qref id="f-Maintainer"><tt>Maintainer</tt></qref> (mandatory)</item>
>  	  <item><qref id="f-Uploaders"><tt>Uploaders</tt></qref></item>
> -	  <item><qref id="f-DM-Upload-Allowed"><tt>DM-Upload-Allowed</tt></qref></item>
>  	  <item><qref id="f-Homepage"><tt>Homepage</tt></qref></item>
>  	  <item><qref id="f-VCS-fields"><tt>Vcs-Browser</tt>, <tt>Vcs-Git</tt>, et al.</qref></item>
>  	  <item><qref id="f-Standards-Version"><tt>Standards-Version</tt></qref> (recommended)</item>
> @@ -3749,20 +3747,11 @@ Checksums-Sha256:
>  	  </p>
>  	</sect1>
>  
> -	<sect1 id="f-DM-Upload-Allowed">
> +	<sect1>
>  	  <heading><tt>DM-Upload-Allowed</tt></heading>
>  
>  	  <p>
> -	    Indicates that Debian Maintainers may upload this package to
> -	    the Debian archive.  The only valid value is <tt>yes</tt>.  If
> -	    the field <tt>DM-Upload-Allowed: yes</tt> is present in the
> -	    source section of the source control file of the most recent
> -	    version of a package in unstable or experimental, the Debian
> -	    archive will accept uploads of this package signed with a key
> -	    in the Debian Maintainer keyring.  See the General
> -	    Resolution <url id="http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003";
> -	    name="Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers"> for more
> -	    details.
> +	    Obsolete, see <qref id="f-DM-Upload-Allowed">below</qref>.
>  	  </p>
>  	</sect1>
>  
> @@ -3858,6 +3847,28 @@ Checksums-Sha256:
>  
>        </sect>
>  
> +      <sect id="obsolete-control-data-fields">
> +	<heading>Obsolete fields</heading>
> +
> +	<p>
> +	  The following fields have been obsoleted and may be found in packages
> +	   conforming with previous versions of the Policy.

(Formatting nitpick, these two lines are not aligned.)

> +	</p>
> +
> +	<sect1 id="f-DM-Upload-Allowed">
> +	  <heading><tt>DM-Upload-Allowed</tt></heading>
> +
> +	  <p>
> +	    Indicates that Debian Maintainers may upload this package to
> +	    the Debian archive.  The only valid value is <tt>yes</tt>.  This

Maybe these sentences should be switched to past tense?

> +	    field was used to regulate uploads by Debian Maintainers, See the
> +	    General Resolution <url id="http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003";
> +	    name="Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers"> for more details.
> +	  </p>
> +	</sect1>
> +
> +      </sect>
> +
>      </chapt>

Seconded (w/ or w/o the above comments addressed).

Thanks,
Guillem

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: