Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:57 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The “paragraph” format that is popular in Debian control files does not allow
> the use of free comments. [- - -]
> I propose to use a simpler format, that is trivial to parse:
Having debian/copyright use the same file format as debian/control would
seem to me to be a plus. People are already used to writing in that
format, and there are parser implementations for the format, so it's a
very convenient one to use. The format even allows using '#' for
comments. Therefore it is my personal opinion that we should stick to
However, as DEP-5 driver, I will record any consensus that emerges. If
there is wide support for Charles's new format, I'll modify DEP-5 to use
that. So if you support it, please speak up now. (Until and unless a
consensus in favor of the new syntax is clear, I will assume the
consensus is for the syntax in the current revision of the
> On the other hand, it was noted by Don yesterday and by Steve in December that
> other projects, in particular Fedora, also use short names. I think that it
> important that we converge on a common set. I proposed in December to contact
> Fedora, but did not get positive answers on debian-project. I volunteer again
> to contact Fedora and the Linux Foundation as a DEP driver, to propose them
> to use a common set.
The SPDX people are collaboration with other projects, including Fedora,
on this right now. Steve and I discussed it and he'll join the SPDX
mailing list to represent us, and will relay any concerns and updates.
(I don't know if the SPDX list is public. I hope it is. If someone can
find out and post a URL to their list archive, it would be a good
Personal opinion: mostly the license shortnames should just require
agreeing what they are for each of the most common licenses, and it
doesn't really matter what the exact string for each one is. I'm OK with
anything that is unambiguous. I would like to see us avoid painting this
bikeshed as much as possible.
> To my knowledge, you were the first to suggest this.
I can't remember what this is about. Can you refresh our memories?
> I am running out of time, but that is already a couple of things to discuss.
I have not commented on most of your topics, because I have no opinion
on most of them. If others comment and there's a consensus for the
changes you propose, I'll edit the spec accordingly.