Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

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)."
> instead?

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
> compatibility.

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:


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.


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)


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


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
files.

@@ -545,7 +544,7 @@
 
 ## Implementation
 
-### Examples in pseudo-RFC-822 format
+### Examples
 #### Simple
 A possible `copyright` file for the program 'X Solitaire' distributed in the
 Debian source package `xsol`:



Have a nice Sunday,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan