Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc
On su, 2010-11-14 at 12:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 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.
We should, of course, allow people to copy copyright statement verbatim
into debian/control. However, since that can result in a fair bit of
redundancy, with all the repeated "Copyright" words, some might prefer
to simplify things and use something like the format the current
examples in DEP5 do.
Personally, I don't think we should suggest either verbatim or mangling.
However, it would be good if all the examples didn't use the mangled
format. Thus, we could change some examples to be unmangled.
Any other opinions?
> Field types
> ===========
>
> @@ -85,12 +85,13 @@
> for details.
>
> 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.
Once policy has actually been amended, I'd be happy to apply this patch.
Until then, I think it's best not to do it, since the policy amendment
might still change.
> 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
> `License` does.
>
> -Each field may occur at most once in a paragraph.
> -
> # Implementation
> ## Paragraps
> ### Header paragraph (Once)
>
>
This'll require people to be intimate with the policy spec for this, but
it's not that big a deal. Applied.
> RFC (2)822
> ==========
>
> 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.
>
> * **`Source`**
> * Required
Applied, thanks.
> -### Examples in pseudo-RFC-822 format
> +### Examples
> #### Simple
> A possible `copyright` file for the program 'X Solitaire' distributed in the
> Debian source package `xsol`:
Applied, thanks.
Reply to: