On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:45:09PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Does this look ok? Does anyone think there's a better way to do this? > > Have I introduced any errors in the conversion?
> Yes, please. This looks great. Thank you! On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > this is a good idea. > The patch applies well and before or after conversion to HTML, I have > not seen errors. Thanks for the review. Pushed to the DEP repo. > While proofreading it, I found the part where it is written “Copyright > alone makes no sense”. Perhaps it could be clarified whether, regardless > of sense, a file where the Header paragraph has a Copyright field but no > License field is syntactically valid or not. Yes, this is also something I want to fix but wanted to treat separately from the restructuring. I'll propose a patch soon. > I also noted that in the description of the Format field, it is written > “Required in header paragraphs”, but the such information is not given in > similar cases, for instance the Files field. Perhaps this could be > normalised. Agreed. The simplest way to normalize is to drop the comment in the description of the Format field, since that's an artifact of my earlier thinking on how to structure this. Do you agree, or do you think we should instead add this information to all of the field definitions? If the latter, would you be willing to provide a patch? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
