Format-Specification in dh-make-perl

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor-7]

hey folks--


i just noticed that r45348 for dh-make-perl switched the
Format-Specification away from the old wiki page to the new
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ .

this is good, but it doesn't actually follow the current version of the
specification, which says:

  * Suggested format: URI of the format specification, such as:
     *
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=REVISION

Since the format may change at some point in the future, including the
revision explicitly is probably the right thing to do.

the DEP is currently at revision 59, so i suggest that we update all the
Format-Specification lines to use

  http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=59

instead.

I'm happy to make this change myself, if there are no objections.  Any
thoughts?

        --dkg

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:03:19PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>the DEP is currently at revision 59, so i suggest that we update all
>the Format-Specification lines to use
>
>  http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=59
>
>instead.
>
>I'm happy to make this change myself, if there are no objections.  Any
>thoughts?

Make sure to verify if that newer revision of policy is then followed.

One thing I know of is the use of "Contact:" which was true as of rev54
but changed in later revisions.


  - Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: [phone]  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor-7]

On 10/22/2009 12:24 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Make sure to verify if that newer revision of policy is then followed.

Yeah, it looks like it is compatible.  The current revision (59) is
pretty simple stuff, and we generate pretty simple stuff.  this is good!

I've committed the change to the versioned URL.

One final thought, as i'm looking at this stuff: i'm not sure why we
want the X-Comment: sub-sections per license, instead of just including
the location of the license in the body directly?  Is this recommended
somewhere?

        --dkg

[gregor herrmann-3]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:25:18 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

> I've committed the change to the versioned URL.

Thanks for noticing and fixing this.
 
> One final thought, as i'm looking at this stuff: i'm not sure why we
> want the X-Comment: sub-sections per license, instead of just including
> the location of the license in the body directly?  Is this recommended
> somewhere?

Good question; it was added by Salvatore and I assumed he had a good
reason for it :)
If it's not needed I'd rather see it removed since it's not exactly
beautiful IMO.

PS: You might want to add changelog entry and yourself to d/control,
d/copyright and the AUTHOR section in lib/DhMakePerl.pm

Cheers,
gregor

--
 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
   `-    NP: Bob Dylan: Temporary like Achilles

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor-7]

On 10/22/2009 05:08 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
> PS: You might want to add changelog entry and yourself to d/control,
> d/copyright and the AUTHOR section in lib/DhMakePerl.pm

is this really necessary?  i don't think i've contributed any real
authorship here, and the existing changelog in 0.61 (unreleased) about
the move from the wiki to the DEP seems like it covers the specific
switchover (we've never released any version with the unversioned DEP URLs).

I'll certainly add myself to the relevant spots and add a changelog
entry if i make a semantically-meaningful contribution, but i don't
think this one qualifies (though i'm willing to change my mind if folks
on this list really really want me to treat it as such).

        --dkg

[gregor herrmann-3]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:46:59 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

> > PS: You might want to add changelog entry and yourself to d/control,
> > d/copyright and the AUTHOR section in lib/DhMakePerl.pm
> is this really necessary?  

No, I just thought I'd mention that it's fine if someone likes to do
it - just an option :)


Cheers,
gregor
--
 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
   `-    NP: Led Zeppelin: Stairway To Heaven

[Salvatore Bonaccorso-3]

Hi Daniel

sorry for the late answer (just back from vacation)

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 01:25:18PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 10/22/2009 12:24 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Make sure to verify if that newer revision of policy is then followed.
>
> Yeah, it looks like it is compatible.  The current revision (59) is
> pretty simple stuff, and we generate pretty simple stuff.  this is good!
>
> I've committed the change to the versioned URL.

Many thanks for makeing the change!

> One final thought, as i'm looking at this stuff: i'm not sure why we
> want the X-Comment: sub-sections per license, instead of just including
> the location of the license in the body directly?  Is this recommended
> somewhere?

No it's not recomended anywhere. Here my thought about it: the
License-Section contains the License-Text. The "Comment" is not part
of the License, but points where the license-text can be found. Thus I
moved this part into the "extra field" part (see section in DEP5
"extra fields").

Many thanks Daniel,
Bests
Salvatore

[Salvatore Bonaccorso-3]

Hi

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:08:11PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:25:18 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> > I've committed the change to the versioned URL.
>
> Thanks for noticing and fixing this.
>  
> > One final thought, as i'm looking at this stuff: i'm not sure why we
> > want the X-Comment: sub-sections per license, instead of just including
> > the location of the license in the body directly?  Is this recommended
> > somewhere?
>
> Good question; it was added by Salvatore and I assumed he had a good
> reason for it :)
> If it's not needed I'd rather see it removed since it's not exactly
> beautiful IMO.

Ok, if we want we could, as in examples in the revision 59 of DEP5
simply "merge" the X-Comment part into the the text-part of the
License: section. The X-Comment part is not strictly needed as
comment. I have changed it as asked by Daniel Kahn Gillmor.

Bests
Salvatore