On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The current Policy manual says almost nothing about the README.Debian file. I
> suggest to add a section 6.8 (in the "Documentation" chapter) or something
> like that:
>
> 6.8 README.Debian
Something to this effect should definitely be added. It might even be worth
mentioning that a "TODO.Debian" can be helpful too. So on the presumption
I can second this with a mild difference of opinion, I'd like to do that.
> Your package may contain a /usr/share/doc/package/README.Debian file. It is
> mandatory to have one if you modified the source code of the upstream package.
I'd prefer to just say it should document these changes, rather than make
it mandatory. :-/
> - the rationale for choosing such or such options in the debian/rules when
> calling configure and/or make.
Why shouldn't this simply be in the debian/rules file where it's convenient,
both to change when you change the configure and/or make options, and to
read when you notice someone's setting weird options in the rules file?
> - the Debian packages you need to recompile this package. The Debian packaging
> system does not know about formal source dependencies. Therefore, if the
> source of a package does not compile, the user has to guess what you need. It
> is better to tell it explicitely.
There's an existing proposal to have proper build dependencies, so this
is hopefully redundant.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgp1EkO3ogcqV.pgp
Description: PGP signature