Re: Bug#250202: Alternate proposal

[Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:18:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 12, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > <20050426093217.GN4948@country.grep.be> to say the target should be
> > "patched", rather than "source". For reference, the proposal as it now
> > reads follows; as always, I'm looking for seconds.
> I object. If the standard "patched" target exists then README.source
> should not be needed.

I object to that objection:

1) 'patched' is not a sufficient interface to deal with a package. It only
allow to look at a package in it final form, not to modify it.  Ad
minimum, you need a way to add new patches. you still need README.source
to document that.

2) Packages that does not provide a README.source should be assumed to 
not require special handling. 

Cheers,
Bill.