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