Re: New version of DEP-5 parser

[Dominique Dumont <domi.dumont@free.fr>]

Le dimanche 23 janvier 2011 15:26:46, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> >For instance, this DEP-5 file is valid, since Maintainer field is 
> >accepted as an unknown parameter and Upstream-Contact is optional:
> >
> >Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
> >Maintainer: foo@bar
> >
> >Files: *
> >Copyright: (c) me
> >License: GPL-2+
> >
> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it
> > and/or modify it [snip]
> >
> >In this case, is this an error or a DD who does not
> >like the Upstream-Contact keyword ?
> 
> How about emit a warning in unknown-but-likely-error cases like this.
> 
> ...and perhaps optionally be invasive as is now the default.

Err, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's already the case whether you run with 
-save option or not.

E.g. on the example above, you can have the warnings without modifying 
copyright file:

  $ cp debian/copyright debian/copyright.bak
  $ config-edit -appli dpkg-copyright -ui none
  Element 'Maintainer' of node 'Debian::Dpkg::Copyright' is deprecated
  $ diff debian/copyright debian/copyright.bak

And you can have the "invasive" behavior with the -save option

  $ config-edit -appli dpkg-copyright -ui none -save
  Element 'Maintainer' of node 'Debian::Dpkg::Copyright' is deprecated
  $ diff debian/copyright debian/copyright.bak
  2,3c2,3
  < Upstream-Contact: foo@bar
  < Source:
  ---
  > Maintainer: foo@bar
  > 

Is this the behavior you're thinking of ?

All the best

[ note to self: fix fishy behavior with the empty Source line ]

Dominique

PS: Note to all: I'm slowing down on DEP-5 parser development because I'm busy 
preparing FOSDEM

--
http://config-model.wiki.sourceforge.net/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/ddumont     -o- http://ddumont.wordpress.com/