Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> All I see here is that the tools should be able to extract the >> information from the changelog, which often includes a bug number and >> other bits of information. > > I would say the opposite. Once you have created your patch you should be > able to do ˝dch -a --patch debian/patches/fix_typo.patch” and it would > create the changelog entry for you.
(not that I use dch very often, but) okay, I see your point. > > Converting structured content in non-structured content is easy, the > opposite is more difficult. But not impossible, this has been done before and I guess it will happen again in the future :) Back to the DEP... > Description (required) Why not simply consider all the free-form text the description? that would make all the current patches with a comment insta DEP3-compliant. > Origin (required) Making this field mandatory doesn't sound like a good idea to me, as it already clashes a bit with the forwarded and author fields. If the Origin is upstream, then it doesn't need to be forwarded; and it doesn't cope very well with the idea of patches by some John Doe user. > Bug-<Vendor> or Bug (optional) Like Paul Wise already said: it would be better to have a single field where the urls to the bug trackers can be specified. It doesn't only make it easier to find the final url, but it also requires zero extra maintenance/updates on the parsing tools just to know about another bug tracker. Regarding other posts: > > > +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. Although strictly speaking I'm not a "lintian maintainer", am the person who implemented it. In this case I'd say it should be severity: wishlist, pedantic is for things that are nice/better, but don't provide much or any benefit. It is as simple as: would you file a report to ask the maintainer to use the DEP3 format? I'd say yes, because it provides the following benefits: better structured documentation, allows automated tools to parse it and <...> Would you file a report to ask the maintainer to remove the CVS directories from upstream's tarball? I'd say no, what benefit does it provide? none. Cheers, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
