On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2009-06-19, Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> wrote: > > +Scope and application > > +--------------------- > > + > > +The usage of this format is highly recommended but as long as it's not > > +endorsed by the Debian policy, it will not be required. It is however > > "And there is no plan to make it required in the future"
I won't put this in here. I have no reason to stop people from making it mandatory in the future. You will have to re-raise your concerns when the debian-policy discussion happens (if it happens). > > +expected that tools like lintian will be modified to recommend adding > > +those information in patches. As the technical impact on package is null, > > Please do not decrease the usability of lintian even further. In linitan > speak, this should be a "pedantic" tag at most. I will leave that up to lintian maintainers. > If people choose to use this new format, tools should choke/warn if there > was more foo: bar fields in the patch than in the specification. > > I will have patches with headers like > qt-bugs@ issue: 123 > applied: yes > http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/qt4-x11/4.5.1-2/0225-invalidate-tabbar-geometry-on-refresh.patch > for example > > and more such custom headers. And that must be fully valid. Leave a blank line after the official headers and you'll be able to put whatever you want. Otherwise we can also decide to have "X-" for prefix for custom headers if you prefer. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > Personally I think we are too far to mandate DEP-3 > (and BTW the subject has "guideline", not "requirements"): > - we need to use the new source format > - we need to have experiences with new dpkg-source and > new tagging, and to found problem > - and probably new discussion about real problems. Well, no, we don't need any of that. We already have experience with handling patches... and we are able to define a good format now that should not need to evolve much in the future. > Then from time to time we could include some mature items > in the policy and discuss improvements. While it's possible that some gradual improvements happen over time, the day where policy officialize this, I expect it will be mostly cut & paste of what we have since policy should document current practice when something is widely used already. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > In this case I think we should use DEP-3 without discussion every details: > we need a larger user base, then we will discuss details for standardization, > but not now. I prefer we take the time to think it thoroughly so that we don't have to come back to it later. It's easier to standardize something that works and has seen no need for substantial changes since X months rather than a recommendation that changes every other month because it has not been well fleshed out. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
