Bug#250202: "debian/README.source" file for packages with non-trivial source

[Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>]

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:

> Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch> writes:
>
>> The developer's reference describes in 
>>
>> 6.7.8 Best practices for orig.tar.gz files
>>
>> how to document properly any changes that need to be done to the
>> orig.tar.gz, and recommends the name README.Debian-source. This is the
>> only mention of that filename in devref, and README.source is not
>> mentioned at all.
>
> As discussed on -mentors (and I believe I also filed a bug against
> devref), 

You probably mean
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.mentors/18439/focus=18450

> I believe the devref instructions are wrong.  The proper location
> for this information is debian/copyright, which is already required to
> contain information about the provenance of the upstream source.

I would argue that if the changes to the orig.tar.gz have been made for
other reasons than DFSG-freeness, debian/copyright is the wrong
place. Such reasons could be

- creating a single tar.gz from multiple upstream locations or from an
  unpacked tree (TeXLive only distributes CD images, from which we skip
  the part needed for Live CDs or installation from CD)

- changing the format of the upstream archive, e.g. if it comes as a ZIP
  file instead of tar.gz, or tar.$compression_not_supported_by_dpkg

- reducing the size of the tarball to 10% by removing the included
  library sources, hard-linked binaries for lots of OSes/arches and/or
  the specialized build systems for some of them

That simply doesn't fit into debian/copyright, and I think using a
special README file targetted at developers is in order. Alternatively,
one could use the get-orig-tar target in debian/rules, but that would
probably require lengthy commens in that file explaining why this is
done. 

If the orig.tar.gz is repackaged (at least in part) because of licening
issues, then this needs to be documented *additionally* in
debian/copyright. 

>> Actually, I think that name, README.Debian-source, is even better for
>> the patch system issue, too, since it's about Debian-specific
>> modifications of the source.
>
> It's already in the debian/ directory, so the additional Debian- seems
> redundant to me.

Yes, you are right.

So, as for this bug, I still think that the info in devref is correct,
and should be included in the example in policy, if policy gives an
example at all. 

If you think that the information in devref is incorrect, please file a
bug and Cc me; I don't think we should discuss this here (although I can
already say that I don't seem to agree with some things you said in the
thread above).

Regards, Frank

-- 
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)