Le Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:03:20AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : > Charles Plessy wrote: > > Le Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : > > >> For example, I think the idea of a License-exception stanza is > >> uncontroversial and valuable. > > > > given that the current specification does not forbid unpecified fields, > > I would recommend to test the proposed License-Exception field in real, > > by convincing package maintainers and parser providers to use and support > > it. > > Unfortunately that would involve violating the spec. The current > specification requires that every paragraph be a header paragraph, a > Files paragraph, or a License paragraph. License-Exception paragraphs > are not allowed. Besides, when the License field in a Files paragraph > refers to a license exception, either the field must include the full > text of the license or a pointer to common-licenses or the short name > followed by a license exception must be defined in a License paragraph > --- defining the short name and license exception in separate > standalone paragraphs is not allowed.
Sorry for the confusion between new field and new paragraph. Still, I think that we are spending a lot of time discussing refinements that need to demonstrate their usefulness by being adopted independantly by a broad number of package maintainers. If experimentations are blocked because the current specification does not allow unspecified types of paragraphs, how about considering to relax it ? We already had the same issue for proposed paragraphs about removed files. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
