Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc
Dear Lars and everybody,
here are two answers and a proposition for editorial changes.
> * Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements
> verbatim, including the word "Copyright" or c-in-a-circle or whatever?
Given that the upstream authors are somtimes themselves inconsistent, this
would probably give extra work and possilibities of failure to the Debian
package maintainer. I think that the current draft is good as it is.
> Would everyone be OK if I change it to say "First line:
> an abbreviated name for the license, or expression giving alternatives
> (see *Short names* section for a list of standard abbreviations)."
I support this change.
> The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left
> for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX
It is great to see the end of the tunnel ! Thank you for your perseverance.
I would like to propose a couple of last editorial changes. I have worked on
Policy's section 5.1, that defines the syntax of control files. The patch I
submitted was alredy seconded by two developers (#593909), and I expect it to
be applied in the future. It brings some clarifications on the syntax of the
fields, where three types are defined: simple, folded and multiline. I propose
to add this information to the DEP:
@@ -85,12 +85,13 @@
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
In the above patch, I also changed ‘Text formatted’ by ‘Formatted text’, which
is more consistent with the text that follows in the DEP.
Redundancy with Policy
The Policy already disallows to use a field more than once in a paragraph.
Perhaps that can then be removed from the DEP?
@@ -114,8 +115,6 @@
For example, `Disclaimer` has no special first line, whereas
-Each field may occur at most once in a paragraph.
### Header paragraph (Once)
The most up to date version is 5322:
@@ -139,7 +138,7 @@
* Syntax: line based list
* 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.
+ will usually be written as a list of RFC5322 addresses or URIs.
Pseudo-RFC format ?
The example in the DEP is in DEP format :) I propose to remove
mention of pseud-RFC-822 format. RFC-822 parser can not parse
the DEP, and our main source of inspiration is the Debian control
@@ -545,7 +544,7 @@
-### Examples in pseudo-RFC-822 format
A possible `copyright` file for the program 'X Solitaire' distributed in the
Debian source package `xsol`:
Have a nice Sunday,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan