Le Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions > of the draft that allowed arbitrary free-form text to be mixed into the > copyright file to explain things that aren't part of the bits that have > a fixed format or that aren't easily expressed that way. That would > strike a better balance in some places, I think.
Dear Russ, this is a very reasonable suggesstion. Either the comment could start with a sign, like ‘#’ in debian/control, or we could decide that any line following a blank line and not matching a regular expression /^\w+:/ is a comment. Otherwise, we would need to list an authoritative list of fields, and I am not sure that it is in the spirit of the format. Currently, any undocumented field is acceptable. So to summarise the possible things to commit to the draft, there would be: - Two FAQ entries, one about the possibility of not reproducing the copyright if the license permits, and one about ‘debianization’. - Clarify the Files: field, allowing ‘*’ and ‘?’ as wildcards, and deleting the reference to “same copyrights” in. - Allow off-format portions, and maybe add a FAQ entry about comments. - Use examples drafted from packages accepted in our archive. Although sometimes painful, and although it is prepature and unplanned becase we did not initiate it, I think that this discussion is productive. In order to not turn people away by a flood of emails, I would like to suggest to everybody to try to reduce the number of contributions they send per day. Most of the answers we think of will be done by someone else if we wait a few hours, and I think it is best if this discussion involves more persons. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
