Hi Andreas, You replied to a message more than a week old, and missed an option which came up last week, see below. On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 16:33 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote: > > > Sure. So, to summarize, we have the following options: > > > > 1. The references are added to the long description > > 2. The references are added to Packages via a new X-* field > > 3. The references are added to debian/copyright > > 4. The references are supplied in a file under ./debian and > > installed in a common location (via debhelper or other methods) > > 1. in an already widely-used bibliographic format > > 2. in a RFC822 format that is converted to other formats on > > installation > > > > To me, only 4) is an option, and I prefer to go the 4.1 route. 5. The package maintainer includes reference file(s) where (s)he sees fit, with an index pointing to them and indicating their format in the .doc-base file. > Thanks for sumarizing these options. My opinion about these options > is not that strong. I admit I can understand your motivation for your > preference. I do not really want to use this as an argument but I > would just want to note that your prefered choice is the option that > makes the implementation on the tasks page the hardest amongst all > the options. I do not see this as an unresolvable problem but it delays > the implementation the most. Option 5 doesn't delay implementation at all, and allows later versions of doc-base parsers to build any number of centralized reference indices by aggregating the packages' reference files. Is there a reason you didn't consider it? Do you think one of 1-4 is better? -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part