Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Hi Policy hackers.
I feel there is a problem with §4.14 ("Source package handling:
debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present.
Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
require a README.source is damaging the concept of README.source - as the
archive grows more boilerplate descriptions on how to invoke quilt et al, I
fear maintainers will simply not bother to consult this file when examining
a package.
This is particularly unfortunate as, not only can the file be extremely
useful, I fear it will fuel a cycle of maintainers not updating the file
with information as it does not get read anymore.
Besides, the concept of boilerplate is hardly anthemic in Debian.
If the motivation behind README.source is to highlight non-trivial
packaging, then many packages can be presented that are trivial dispite
using a patch system. My own conclusion is that the adoption of dpatch or
quilt is so common that the skills for it may be assumed.
To get things rolling, I propose that we temper:
| This explanation should include specific commands and mention any
| additional required Debian packages. It should not assume familiarity
| with any specific Debian packaging system or patch management tools.
.. with something subjective like "any non-standard Debian packaging
system". This would still ask maintainers to document the parts of their
packages that would be unfamiliar to most developers, whilst avoiding
maintainers including essays on how to invoke pbuilder and other nonsense.
Whilst using a subjective like this isn't desirable, it does avoid having to
enumerate specific programs that are exempt from explanation, which doesn't
really smell right for the Policy.
Thoughts?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` lamby@debian.org
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature