On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, but I'd like to specifically
> spell out what the exceptions are. I think the important exception would
> be that packages that use quilt or dpatch in the default mode, applying
> all patches in debian/patches/series debian/patches/00list before the
> build and removing them on clean, aren't required to have a README.source.
> That should get most of the cases where this is simple boilerplate, while
> still preserving the requirement for uses of quilt or dpatch in a
> non-standard way.
>
> The implication is that people will have to know how quilt and dpatch
> work, but anything else has to be explained. I think anyone doing
> substantial Debian work has probably encountered quilt and dpatch at some
> point anyway and is at least vaguely familiar, so I think that preserves
> the original goal.
>
> I don't know if we should include CDBS's basic patch system as well.
I'm inclined to agree with Lamby also. Although specifying a worthwhile
list of exceptions does seem likely to become a slippery slope. Should
we also be excluding packaging done through VCS branches from this
requirement, for example?
Regards,
Andrew.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://andrew.mcmillan.net.nz/ Porirua, New Zealand
Twitter: _karora Phone: +64(272)DEBIAN
You have an ability to sense and know higher truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part