Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I would instead suggest changing the next paragraph to something like > the following: > > ``In case a package uses a build system for which documentation > sufficient to satisfy this requirement exists in a file installed by one > of the package's build dependencies, this file should be referred to > from the README.source file, rather than copied into it.'' [..] > Such phrasing will result in README.source files saying > > "This package uses quilt, as documented in > /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source" Whilst I quite like the idea of allowing source documentation to be satisfied by build dependencies, a single-line README.source still has all the drawbacks I originally filed this bug about. That is to say, the existence of your README.source file would still be a false-positive when looking at the package with respect to whether it is esoteric in some way. Raphael Geissert also argues this in #73. But would such a pointer be valuable enough to mitigate these concerns? For a newbie, the answer might very well be "yes". However, this seems like a weak and relatively rare case to optimise for, compounded by the high cost of excessive false-positives. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` lamby@debian.org `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature