Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:53:37AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Go ahead and file bugs. With patches. And perhaps an explanation
> of why a README in the .deb is not required and, if it exists, is not
> required to equal upstream's.
>
> When a few dozen of your patches have made it to sid, condense your
> experience into a well-reasoned, not too long, best practices summary
> which acknowledges that maintainer discretion is still required for
> many things, and offer it for inclusion in the Developer's Reference.
I'll start with my own packages. They give really bad example
of useless READMEs.
Cheers,
--
Wolfgang Borgert <debacle@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
Reply to:
- References:
- README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
- From: "W. Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
- Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
- From: Benjamin Seidenberg <astronut@dlgeek.net>
- Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
- From: Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca>
- Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
- Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
- From: "W. Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
- Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>