Bug#250202: Get this over with

[Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be>]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:21:05AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 20, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> > +          When running <prgn>dpkg-source -x</prgn> does not
> > +          immediately give one a directory with editable source, a
> > +          package should provide a file debian/README.source which
> > +          enumerates and documents the debian/rules targets for at
> > +          least <em>unpacking the source</em> and <em>applying
> > +          debian-specific patches</em> (if any, or a simple statement
> > +          that such a target does not exist or is not required if
> > +          none).</p>
> I object to an hard requirement, and I also object to the general idea.
> It's not like there are hundred of different packaging scripts, so we
> would end up with hundred of similar three-lines README.source files.

Perhaps my judgement was clouded by the fact that dbs-alike scripts
aren't synchronized yet; however, at the time I reported this bug, there
were at least a number of (incompatible) dbs-alike scripts out there.

The fact that there is now cdbs (which is gaining more adoption, and is
slowly but surely replacing the older variants) does indeed help. In any
case, if the packages that use such packaging schemes could come to an
agreement without having to go through policy, that would indeed even be
better.

> I think it would be better to have a standard makefile target for
> unpacking/patching which would solve the issue in most situations and
> then use README.source when something really complex is going on and
> more details are useful.

Sounds reasonable.

-- 
         EARTH
     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
         WATER
 -- with thanks to fortune