Hello, one more turn for this DEP, after all. Recent changes are not numerous but there are some.
Current version: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ === Changes since last round === - Clarified that vendor names are case-insensitive - Made the categorization in Origin optional. Made the field optional if Author field is present. he whole paragraph has been rewritten due to this: + * `Origin` (required except if `Author` is present) + + This field should document the origin of the patch. In most cases, it + should be a simple URL. For patches backported/taken from upstream, it + should point into the upstream VCS web interface when possible, + otherwise it can simply list the relevant commit identifier (it should + be prefixed with "commit:" in that case). For other cases, one should + simply indicate the URL where the patch was taken from (mailing list + archives, distribution bugtrackers, etc.) when possible. + + The field can be optionaly prefixed with a single keyword followed by + a comma and a space to categorize the origin. The allowed keywords are + "upstream" (in the case of a patch cherry-picked from the upstream + VCS), "backport" (in the case of an upstream patch that had to be + modified to apply on the current version), "vendor" for a patch + created by Debian or another distribution vendor, or "other" for all + other kind of patches. + + In general, a user-created patch grabbed in a BTS should be + categorized as "other". When copying a patch from another vendor, the meta-information (and hence this field) should be kept if present, or created if necessary with a "vendor" origin. + If the `Author` field is present, the `Origin` field can be omitted + and it's assumed that the patch comes from its author. + - Recommend to keep description lines shorter than 80 chars - Allow multiple Author fields. - Added the rationale for encoding vendor name in Bug-<Vendor> --- a/web/deps/dep3.mdwn +++ b/web/deps/dep3.mdwn @@ -115,6 +115,12 @@ of any other distribution that tracks the same problem/patch. bug tracker. Those fields can be used multiple times if several bugs are concerned. + The vendor name is explicitely encoded in the field name so that + vendors can share patches among them without having to update the + meta-information in most cases. The upstream bug URL is special + cased because it's the central point of cooperation and it must + be easily distinguishable among all the bug URLs. + * `Forwarded` (optional) === Remaining concerns/ideas === * Charles Plessy wanted to specify more precisely the format instead of saying "RFC-2822 compliant fields". The discussion went nowhere and nobody else expressed support for such a change. * I wonder if I shall add some samples to the document to make it clearer in everybody's mind. What do you think? If you think it's a good idea, feel free to provide some interesting (real-life) sample. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
