[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#649811: Publication of copyright-format 1.0, a.k.a DEP 5 (after it is accepted).

Le Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:31:58PM -0400, David Prévot a écrit :
> >>  
> >>   http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ 
> >>
> >>   /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format-1.0.html
> >>   /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format-1.0.xml.tar.gz
> >>   /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format-1.0.txt.gz
> we wanted the version number part of the file (inside the
> debian-policy package) to avoid hardcoding it in the web build: we
> really would prefer not to change the build each time a new
> copyright-format is released (according to the stable update experience,
> we can say for sure that what needs to be done will always be forgotten ;-).
> Attached a crappy-untested-improvable patch that should address the
> concerns. Once agreed on the text file name in the web tree, and the
> patch tested and reviewed (and probably improved ;-), we could even
> manage to make it work if and only if copyright-format-*.html actually
> exists in the debian-policy package: as soon as the copyright-format-1.0
> will actually be part of the debian-policy package, the file will show
> up where it belongs, without any need to coordinate with the webmasters.

Hi David,

I think that it is an excellent idea to uncouple the logistics of the the
document installation and of the document release.

In your patch, only one version is expected.  In my understanding, old versions
will still be distributed in the debian-policy package.  But it looks like a
for loop could easily allow to install multiple versions on the Debian website,
if this is something that people want and agree on.  (My opinion: I prefer and

For the text version, I am not sure how necessary it is.  In my mind, it would
have been cool if http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
returned an HTML version or a text version according to the HTTP headers.
But distributing the text version under
or not distributing it at all are also valid options.  I am neutral on this.

Bon week-end,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: