[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Added README.source to our group policy.

Am Donnerstag, den 13.11.2008, 13:37 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
> Hi all,
> I added the following paragraph to our Policy.
> (I suppose it is consensual)

I'm not part of debian-med. However, I hope you don't mind this mail:

> +		<sect2>
> +			<title><filename>debian/README.source</filename></title>
> +			<para>This file is recommended by the Policy (<ulink url="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource";>§ 4.14</ulink>) from version 3.8.0 for documenting source package handling. You can start from the following template, and add other necessary informations about patch systems and sources in other format than gzipped tar achive:
> +				<literallayout>
> +This package is maintained by the Debian Med packaging team. Please refer to
> +our group policy if you would like to commit to our Subversion repository. All
> +Debian developpers have write acces to it.
> +				</literallayout>
> +			</para>
> +		</sect2>

IMHO this is a misuse of this file. The contents of README.source should
point to unusual/uncommon source handling, including source parts, which
have been removed, repackaged or put together, patch management systems
and maybe information related to multiple/special builds. But your
template does not fit any of these categories. Instead it doubles the
information from the already existing Vcs* control fields and
debian/copyright. So I think, that the last paragraph of section 4.14 of
the policy doesn't apply here (IMHO *buildpackage tools are not the
target of this sentence, as they are not necessary to modify the
source). As long as this package is maintained by a group of people,
they can agree to some policy internally. But such a group policy nor
the VCS usage do not apply to NMUs nor new maintainers (if this package
gets orphaned). So I think, putting this information into README.source
is wrong.

However, this is my very personal opinion.

Regards, Daniel

Reply to: