Re: [uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
On Monday 26 January 2009 22:24:12 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
--cut--
> > Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and
> > could be removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush
> > or you will need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates
> > descriptions given in the patches' headers. Debian.source (to be refered
To correct my errors first:
`Debian.source' to be read as `debian/README.source'
> > for package-specific practices when someone intends to NMU your package)
> > and REAME.Debian-source (dfsg repackaged source) are not relevant also.
>
> I lobbied hard for keeping README.Debian in last time but I can see my
> inexperience showing again :-)
Nothing spectacular:
/usr/share/doc/developers-reference/developers-reference.txt.gz
> On review you are right, it duplicates
> the patch headers - my aim was to keep the user informed, who will never
> see them, but there isn't any real need.
Having dups could be tiresome for anyone, discrepancies happen... OTOH
dropping a patch would take its description out as well.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: