On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:18:43AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'd rather use "should" if, as it seems from the few early messages,
> > there is consensus on this change.
>
> >> + used to describe how a source package is managed by its
> >> + maintainers, for instance by detailing the write permissions
> >> + on the version control system in which it is stored, or to
> >> + provide a link to the group policy it follows.
> >> + </p>
> >> </sect>
> >> </chapt>
>
> "should" implies that every Debian package should have such file, but I
> don't think the vast majority of Debian packages need such a thing. Many
> have no special requirements beyond common best practices, and even the
> ones with a VCS provide sufficient information in the Vcs-* fields for the
> most part.
Sorry, the current text is probably suboptimal for the "should". My
rational for that was something like "if you have specific commit/VCS
rules, you _should_ write them in README.source". That way the "should"
become conditional wrt the existence of such info.
> Yes, please. Otherwise I'll lose it.
Will do forwarding the first post of this thread in a minute.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature