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

Bug#998165: debian-policy: document and allow Description in the source paragraph



On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 11:18:35AM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> If I get no pushbacks I'll also propose some text later on when I'm
> freer (unless somebody beats me to it!).

I'm hereby seeking seconds (or, well, suggestions for improvements) for
the following diff, which is based on
daa7d69fbffc1c438002993860f0df407e4aaeb1 (4.6.0.1):

|--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
|+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
|@@ -131,6 +131,8 @@ package) are:
| 
| -  :ref:`Rules-Requires-Root <s-f-Rules-Requires-Root>`
| 
|+-  :ref:`Description <s-f-Description>`
|+
| The fields in the binary package paragraphs are:
| 
| -  :ref:`Package <s-f-Package>` (mandatory)
|@@ -652,9 +654,14 @@ orderings.  [#]_
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| 
| In a source or binary control file, the ``Description`` field contains a
|-description of the binary package, consisting of two parts, the synopsis
|-or the short description, and the long description. It is a multiline
|-field with the following format:
|+description of the package, consisting of two parts, the synopsis or the short
|+description, and the long description.
|+
|+When used in a source control file in the general paragraph (i.e., the first
|+one, for the source package), the text in this field is relevant for all binary
|+packages built by the given source package.
|+
|+It is a multiline field with the following format:
| 
| ::
| 

I also pushed my change here:
https://salsa.debian.org/mattia/policy/-/commit/807bd3ea551087df33c54c270e7f11151c8b0ae2

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: