Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes:
>> The syntax of the revision number needs to be specified: digits,
>> digits.digits, digits.digits-digits, whatever.
>
> Given that the current revision number is 1.0, and that I do not
> think that we aim at updating the format frequently, I propose
> the following:
> Optional parameters:
> revision - the revision number of the specification (digits.digits).
Yup, that looks right.
>> You should also specify if there are any privacy/integrity
>> considerations here. I rather doubt that privacy is an issue for this
>> type, but there may be cases where integrity protection is desirable.
> I propose to add the following paragraphs.
> The comment or license fields may be used to quote discussions where
> redistribution terms have been clarified. There is no formal
> mechanism to signal that a proper permission has been given to quote
> the discussion if it was private.
> The machine-readable debian/copyright file format does not feature
> mechanisms to ensure the integrity of the file. Consider using secure
> transport when needed.
> I am not sure how the first paragraph is needed. What do you think ?
I think that's an obscure enough case that it's not horribly important. I
would just say something like:
This media type has no special privacy considerations.
For the last, I would add "or a digital signature" after "secure
transport," since if Debian ever needed to guarantee integrity of the
file, that's probably the mechanism that we'd use.
Thank you for doing this work!
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hapspjdz....@windlord.stanford.edu
