On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I'm really not sure what makes you authoritative for it though, > and I'd like to understand (which doesn't conflict with the fact > I'm happy dep3 is in state ACCEPTED, and that you decided to > do it!).
I just did it as the DEP driver because I believe that there's a consensus that the implementation has been a success and that's the criteria set in DEP-0. Since the goal was only to provide a format to standardize the meta-information and that many people are successfully using this format to document their patch, I think we can assert that the DEP has been successful. I have not counted how many patches embed those standardized fields so I can't say how widely it is used but I know from the interaction with various DD / teams that it's relatively well accepted (the quilt maintainer even recently added a --dep3 option to "quilt header"). > Also, does this mean that you've patched the policy, that lintian > would soon more aggressively complain about lacks of patch > comments, and that we'll have a new Standard-Version? No, the policy is not the proper place for this, but I believe that a recommendation in the developers-reference would be appropriate. Lintian already recommends the usage of DEP3 in the long description of the relevant "informative" tags it has: http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dpatch-missing-description.html http://lintian.debian.org/tags/quilt-patch-missing-description.html Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116194919.ge15...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
