Bug#42554: weekly policy summary
Anthony Towns wrote:
> What do people think of:
Well, it's significantly different from the original proposal, which I
disliked. i like your version much better, and would second it if it were
> --- - Wed Dec 8 22:11:23 1999
> +++ policy.text Wed Dec 8 22:11:11 1999
> @@ -2518,10 +2518,9 @@
> compressed nor be a symbolic link.
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
> - (if any) were obtained, and explain briefly what modifications were
> - made in the Debian version of the package compared to the upstream
> - one. It must name the original authors of the package and the Debian
> - maintainer(s) who were involved with its creation.
> + (if any) were obtained, and it must name the original authors of
> + the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were involved with
> + its creation.
> /usr/share/doc/<package-name> may be a symbolic link to a directory in
> /usr/share/doc only if two packages both come from the same source and
> @@ -2550,11 +2549,13 @@
> after all, the GPL does not "document" anything, it is merely a
> - Do not use the copyright file as a general `README' file. If your
> - package has such a file it should be installed in
> - `/usr/share/doc/<package>/README' or `README.Debian' or some other
> - appropriate place.
> +6.6. Debian-specific Documentation
> + A package may contain a file /usr/share/doc/<package>/README.Debian
> + (or README.Debian.gz). This should be used to document any
> + Debian-specific modifications made to the package, any compilation
> + options that have been set, and any other user-visible changes.
see shy jo