Le Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:49:22PM +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > Can we standardize the patch header? Be it quilt, dpatch, $foo, the header > > > might be something like: > > > > > > Author: > > > Forwarded: > > > Description:
OK, so let's settle on: Author: Name <email> Forwarded: no | URL | email If not forwarded, explanation is provided in the subsequent lines. Description: executive summary. Longer description possible but optional. License: Same as <upsream program> itself. (optional) It may be necessary to clarify the license of the patch. I have seen some packages where the Debian packaging is GPL but the upstream program non-copyleft (BSD, ...). If we take debian/copyright machine-readably, in these packages debian/patches/* would be GPL unless specified otherwise, which can be unwelcome when upstream chose a more permissive license. (Of course we know that trivial works are not subjected to copyright, but it is always better to avoid misunderstandings). In the end I recommend to use the same license as the upstream sources for the packaging work, unless they are weird or borderline. PS: and let's follow the opinion of Daniel to not encode the status of the patch in its name. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
