Bug#250202: "debian/README.source" file for packages with non-trivial source
Jörg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> writes:
> Russ Allbery schrieb am Tue 01. Jan, 22:54 (-0800):
>> + <file>debian/README.source</file> documentation file is
>> + recommended. This file should explain how to do all of the
>> + following:
>> + <enumlist>
>> + <item>Generate the fully patched source, in a form ready for
>> + editing, that would be built to create Debian
>> + packages. Doing this with a <tt>patched</tt> target in
>> + <file>debian/rules</file> is recommended; see
>> + <ref id="debianrules">.</item>
>> + <item>Modify the source and save those modifications so that
>> + they will be applied when building the package.</item>
>> + <item>Remove existing source modifications that previously
>> + were applied.</item>
>
> Should this be the opposite of the first item or should this describe
> how to remove user modifications, i.e. bring the tree in the state after
> doing debian/rules patched?
What I was trying to get at here was documentation on how to remove a
patch that was previously in the Debian package but which should go away
for some reason (perhaps it introduces a security vulnerability). So it's
not really related to the first item.
I'll try to think of a better way of phrasing that.
> The rest looks good and I agree that such a source is useful, but it
> should also be allowed to refer to a central document like
> /u/s/d/dpatch/README.source. I expect that many README.source look the
> same.
I don't think that needs any change to the above wording. If
README.source refers to another existing file that documents those things,
that seems to me to satisfy the above. Although I suppose we could
explicitly add something like "The instructions may refer to a
documentation file installed by one of the package build dependencies,
provided that it clearly explains these tasks and isn't a general
reference manual."
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: