FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-29-2011, 11:57 AM
Sven Hoexter
 
Default DEP-5 format definition hell

Hi,
I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
the copyright file is complete I don't think this fulfills the goal of
this DEP.

It would be nice if the involved people would clarify what should be
used. So far I've seen the following referenced:

a) SVN revisions of the mdwn file (seems to be ok)
b) http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ (seems to be not that wrong but
exactly this current document claims that a revision of the mdwn file
should be used)
c) a wiki page (rejected that one, seems wrong to me)
d) broken links (obviously rejected)

TIA,
Sven
--
And I don't know much, but I do know this:
With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.
[ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110529115729.GB18249@marvin">http://lists.debian.org/20110529115729.GB18249@marvin
 
Old 05-29-2011, 03:53 PM
Lars Wirzenius
 
Default DEP-5 format definition hell

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
> hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
> the copyright file is complete I don't think this fulfills the goal of
> this DEP.

This is because DEP5 is not finalized yet. When its inclusion into
the debian-policy package is final, the official copy of the spec
will be at a URL that will be like this:

http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format/1.0

When this is ready, there will be an announcement on debian-devel-announce
and every other Format: URL will need to be amended. Until then,
use whatever you feel best like. The spec suggests something like this:

http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=REVISION

which seems like a reasonable thing to do, since it documents what
version of the spec the file is written against.

--
Freedom-based blog/wiki/web hosting: http://www.branchable.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110529155332.GA18838@havelock.liw.fi">http://lists.debian.org/20110529155332.GA18838@havelock.liw.fi
 
Old 05-29-2011, 05:05 PM
Thomas Goirand
 
Default DEP-5 format definition hell

On 05/29/2011 11:53 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
>
>> I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
>> hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
>> the copyright file is complete I don't think this fulfills the goal of
>> this DEP.
>>
> This is because DEP5 is not finalized yet. When its inclusion into
> the debian-policy package is final, the official copy of the spec
> will be at a URL that will be like this:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format/1.0
>
> When this is ready, there will be an announcement on debian-devel-announce
> and every other Format: URL will need to be amended. Until then,
> use whatever you feel best like. The spec suggests something like this:
>
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=REVISION
>
> which seems like a reasonable thing to do, since it documents what
> version of the spec the file is written against.
>
I think it'd be great if what you wrote above was also at:

http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/

Cheers,

Thomas

P.S: What's blocking DEP5 from reaching the policy?
I think it's great the way it is right now already...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4DE27CBE.8030509@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4DE27CBE.8030509@debian.org
 
Old 05-29-2011, 05:58 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default DEP-5 format definition hell

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> P.S: What's blocking DEP5 from reaching the policy?
> I think it's great the way it is right now already...

It's already in the Policy package and was aging there for one release to
be sure we didn't mess anything up when rewriting it to DocBook. Please
review the version currently included in the debian-policy package and
report any issues. The intention is to make it "official" with the next
Policy release (where "official" of course doesn't mean that people are
required to use it).

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87k4d91j9u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87k4d91j9u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
 
Old 05-30-2011, 08:31 AM
Peter Pentchev
 
Default DEP-5 format definition hell

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> Hi,
> I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
> hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
> the copyright file is complete I don't think this fulfills the goal of
> this DEP.
>
> It would be nice if the involved people would clarify what should be
> used. So far I've seen the following referenced:
>
> a) SVN revisions of the mdwn file (seems to be ok)

IMHO this is the preferred (and the only correct) format - there was
a revision of DEP-5 itself that changed the examples to use that after
some discussion.

However, as pointed out in a follow-up, the URL itself might need to
be changed after the Alioth migration... and time will show what it
needs to be changed *to*

> b) http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ (seems to be not that wrong but
> exactly this current document claims that a revision of the mdwn file
> should be used)

Hm, does it really? Yes, it used to - but I think it doesn't right now.
(see the description of the Format header)

> c) a wiki page (rejected that one, seems wrong to me)

This used to be correct during the initial discussion of the idea of
machine-readable copyright files; it became incorrect the moment
DEP 5 was created as such

> d) broken links (obviously rejected)

True, that

G'luck,
Peter

--
Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org peter@packetscale.com
PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
What would this sentence be like if it weren't self-referential?
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org