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

Re: DEP-5: general file syntax

Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> I have mixed feelings about adding a extra level of complexity and
> introduce a syntax for lists. I think that apart from the Files field,
> the DEP could use mostly free-form values in the fields.

> In particular for the Copyright field, I am of the opinion that it
> should be free form and verbatim, preserving the newlines as they are in
> debian/copyright.

If we use the same format everywhere, as proposed elsewhere, people can
just add two spaces before the copyright statements to preserve the

> One minor problem is that Policy §5.1 specifies that if a field value
> may not be wrapped, then this field is a single line of white space
> separated data, and indeed there is no field in Policy's chapter 5 that
> is purely free-form while preserving newlines characters. I have opened
> #593909 to disambiguate this.

The word "wrapped" in that context means "folded," not wrapped in the
sense that you're thinking of.  But we'll talk about that more in that
bug.  Policy didn't use language very consistently.

>>   * **`Upstream-Name`**
>>     * Optional
>>     * Single occurrence
>> +   * Value: single line
>>     * Syntax: Single line (in most cases a single word),
>>       containing the name upstream uses for the software.
>>   * **`Upstream-Contact`**
>>     * Optional
>>     * Single occurrence
>> +   * Value: line based list
>>     * Syntax: Line(s) containing the preferred address(es) to reach
>>       the upstream project. May be free-form text, but by convention
>>       will usually be written as a list of RFC2822 addresses or URIs.

> The syntax of the Upstream-Contact field does not reflect the use
> intended by the Perl packaging team, which is to match a Debian package
> with a CPAN maintainer. The CPAN maintainer's email address not
> necessarly the preferred address to reach the upstream authors (for
> instance, a mailing list).

I don't understand what you're concerned with here.  It seems to match
what they're doing now to me.

> Since this thread is not about the Upstream-* fields, let's not go too
> much in the details, except that in my opinion, ‘line based list’ is not
> the most appropriate format for the Upstream-Contact field's value.

I like line-based list for this.

>> @@ -99,13 +132,15 @@
>>   * **`Source`**
>>     * Optional
>>     * Single occurrence
>> +   * Value: single line
>>     * Syntax: One or more URIs, one per line, indicating the primary
>>       point of distribution of the software.

> Since the syntax allows multiple URIs, and since the URIs may be long, I
> think that allowing newlines in the field will make it more
> readable. for instance by making it free-form (not formatted, see
> below).

I agree with Lars on this.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: