Re: Proposal: user-visible list of divergences from upstream
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <email@example.com> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Are you proposing that, in addition to the changelog and the
> > README.Debian and the NEWS.Debian and the package control files,
> > that there should be *yet another* place where the package
> > maintainer is expected to duplicate information on what they've
> > done to the package?
> README.Debian contains notes about important changes that made in
> Debian's variant of package for a long time of package' lifecycle.
> NEWS.Debian is especially good for upgrading. Changelog is for
> developers and geek users as it contains developer stuff. Patches is
> almost purely developer stuff. In my view, all these files do not
> cover "actual user-oriented important divergences from upstream".
> Only in my view.
Thanks for expressing this view.
> I understand that this proposed info will interfere with above
> mentioned one in Debian documentation files and will require some
> additional time to maintain.
To be clear: The time to maintain extra repositories of information is
only one issue, and a relatively simple one to overcome.
The greater issue is that such duplication of information invariably
leads to multiple repositories with conflicting information. That
situation is arguably *worse* for the person seeking knowledge than if
the information were never recorded.
The information about Debian-specific packaging changes already has
numerous places to store that information. Any increase in the
disparate information repositories needs to be demonstrated more
valuable, not only than the extra time needed for maintaining them,
but also than the *negative* value to everyone when those repositories
conflict in what information they contain.
\ Lucifer: “Just sign the Contract, sir, and the Piano is yours.” |
`\ Ray: “Sheesh! This is long! Mind if I sign it now and read it |
_o__) later?” —http://www.achewood.com/ |