On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:31:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't > > need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers > > to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for > > things which actually were unusual, and would obviate most of the > > concerns raised. > Yeah, that's where I'm coming from as well. After now having some > experience with this policy, it's not feeling particularly useful to have > people copy over some boilerplate if they're using quilt or dpatch in the > normal and expected way. Count me in; these boilerplate README.source copies are tiresome for me, both for writi^Wcopying and reading (or ignoring). I also share the concern that they actually devaluate the files that contain real information (as opposed to pointing to well-known or easy-to-find docs). Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `- BOFH excuse #96: Vendor no longer supports the product
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature