Re: Package documentation
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:01:23AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > IMO, it should say "packages SHOULD change the docs to match the package
> > setup", and "there MUST be a disclaimer when docs do not match the
> > package", and "the disclaimer SHOULD be in the upstream doc itself, or in
> > a the README.Debian if not".
>
> Give me a break. You want a package removed from the archive, just
> because it doesn't have a disclaimer about buggy docs?
If the maintainer can't add "The docs reference paths that do not exist
on a Debian system" to README.Debian, then I would think something is
severely wrong with how the package is maintained.
Why is it that whenever something is proposed as a MUST, people always
resort to "you really want to remove packages for reason <foo>?" I mean,
this is a simple request, and a simple thing to do, and for consistency
sake, it's all the better that it be done. It doesn't mean it will be
removed, it means someone has to fix the bug. Plain and simple.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: