Bug#250202: mandate a common name for "patched source" and/or "unpacked source"
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 08:57:05AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:56:45PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:11:42PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Also all my packages with non-trivial source process include a file
> > > ./README.source that explain how source should be handled.
> >
> > Hm. That sounds like a good idea, too.
>
> Since I got no further replies, let me fix it up to a formal proposal.
>
> I propose that the following paragraph be added to the current Debian
> policy. I'm looking for seconds.
>
> (proposal to demand a debian/README.source)
(note: I'm not a DD)
I'm in dubio about this. On the one hand, just demanding a
debian/README.source still doesn't give a general target for unpacked
sources. OTOH, it is a start, and standardizing on a readme file for
how your source package is arranged might be a good thing. But really
demanding such a README...
In any case, to prevent insta-buggyness, I propose s/must/should/, and I
would change the last paragraph to really encourage the use, not merely
allow it:
| Although this file is only required in one specific case (see above),
| maintainers are encouraged to include a README.source file if the layout
| of the package is not trivial, so aid understanding of it, even if the
| above condition is not fulfilled.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
jeroen@wolffelaar.nl
http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: