Bug#495233: debian-policy: README.source content should be more detailed
On 19/08/08 at 17:19 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 03:17:44PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 15/08/08 at 11:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@debian.org> writes:
> > > > Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > >
> > > >> First, section 4.14 should list things that one does not need to
> > > >> describe in debian/README.source. For example, the use of one of the
> > > >> "standard" patch systems (quilt, dpatch, simple-patchsys) doesn't need
> > > >> to be documented, since every NMUer should be able to work with them.
> > >
> > > I don't agree. This was one of the things that came up specifically in
> > > the original discussion that led to the README.source compromise. If
> > > nothing else, README.source tells people that yes, this is bog-standard
> > > quilt or dpatch, so they don't have to figure out which it is and they
> > > don't have to wonder whether there's something weird at work.
> > >
> > > I would like this file to continue to contain pointers to the standard
> > > documentation for quilt or dpatch if those patch systems are used. We
> > > allowed for a pointer specifically so that all you have to do is include a
> > > line or two of reference. For example, I use:
> > >
> > > | This package uses quilt to manage all modifications to the upstream
> > > | source. Changes are stored in the source package as diffs in
> > > | debian/patches and applied during the build. Please see:
> > > |
> > > | /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source
> > > |
> > > | for more information on how to apply the patches, modify patches, or
> > > | remove a patch.
> > >
> > > quilt and dpatch could probably usefully recommend boilerplate text.
> > >
> > > >> Another example is build systems: cdbs is used by >20% of our packages,
> > > >> so I don't think that one need to document its use.
> > >
> > > > I think the better way is do it similar to copyright: for common
> > > > patch/build system we should include only a link to the relative
> > > > document. Maybe on a common package (build essential or dpkg-dev) or on
> > > > patch system package (but in this case we should push stronger the
> > > > maintainer to include the relevant informations).
> > >
> > > Which is what Policy already says, and quilt, for example, provides such a
> > > document for README.source to link to. So I don't think Policy should be
> > > changed here.
> >
> > But that won't work if we want to include more info in README.source.
> >
> > What about moving to a machine-parseable format, such as:
> >
> > Patch-system: quilt
> > Patch-system-doc: /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source
>
> This does about the same as grepping the build-dep for quilt.
No, a build-dependency such as gnome-pkg-tools or ruby-pkg-tools could
depend on quilt itself. For example, ruby-pkg-tools depends on cdbs, so
each package doesn't depend on cdbs directly.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: