Re: debian xml-sgml policy
On , January 18, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> Mark Johnson <mrj@debian.org> writes:
>
> > On , January 18, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > > Title: Debian SGML/XML Policy
> > > DDP Section: Developers' manuals
> > > Maintainer: Mark Johnson <mrj@debian.org>
> > > Contributors: Adam Di Carlo <aph@debian.org> and hopefully others
> > > Abstract: Subpolicy for Debian packages providing SGML and XML materials.
> > > CVS module name: sgml-xml-policy (?)
> > > Format: DocBook XML (?)
> > > License: GPL (?)
> > >
> > > Should I go ahead and create 'sgml-xml-policy' and start adding the
> > > Makefiles?
> >
> > Sure. Get it going. And thanks for doing so.
>
> Do you like the CVS module name I picked?
Sure. However, the mailing list for the LSB xml/sgml spec is
<lsb-xml-sgml@dulug.duke.edu>, where the xml precedes the sgml.
So, maybe switch it to xml-sgml-policy. XML has already become much
more prevalent than SGML in the general world of technology, so
putting the "xml" first makes sense.
There, I've decided: please name the module xml-sgml-policy
Similarly, perhaps the title should be changed to
Title: Debian XML/SGML Policy
You decide.
> Any other responses to the '(?)' items?
Shouldn't the license be the FDL? Seems to me that the FDL is the
documentation counterpart to the GPL.
License: FDL
You should also add Ardo to the list of contributors, esp given that
he already is one.
I dunno if there are length constraints, but maybe change the Abstract
to something like:
Abstract: Subpolicy for Debian packages that provide and/or make
use of SGML or XML resources.
'seems a little clearer stated in this way. Your call.
> For now I would recommend just focussing on the content of the
> policy itself.
Of course I'll focus on the content. I'm so buried in bug reports and
ITPs that it's downright shameful. I gotta take care of current
problems before I take on anything more.
> That is a lot of work.
Yeah, I know. Remember the last round where we tried to get to LSB
compliance - phew!
> You also have a lot of package bugs, I notice, and a lot of packages
> that need updates for later upstream releases.
Er, um, can we talk about something else?
Seriously, though, next week is for bug-fixing and updates, followed
by a few new package uploads. Very high priority for me.
> Of course, it's your time and you can do what you like...:)
And so I shall. Good thing I happen to like fixing bugs;)
BTW, why can I no longer get a list of my bug reports via email, as in
echo "index maint mrj@debian.org" | mail request@bugs.debian.org
Is that service no longer available?
> We're somewhat constrained by what processors are available on the
> machine that builds and updates the documentation.
>
> I would really request that we not worry too much about this yet,
Agreed. Content needs to be the focus.
> but, yes, look to have flexibility in the processor we're using in
> the future.
Good answer.
Thanks Adam!
Mark
--
_____________________________________
Mark Johnson <mark@duke.edu>
Debian XML/SGML <mrj@debian.org>
Home Page: <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/>
GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4 89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81
Reply to: