Re: use README.source to describe whether committing to VCS is desired
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:41:07PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> + <p>
>> + In addition, <file>debian/README.source</file> may also be
> ^^^
> 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.
The largest objection we've gotten to README.source is the addition of
boilerplate files to lots of packages, and in retrospect that was probably
a mistake (although format 3.0 mostly makes this go away again). I don't
really want to add something else similar. I'd rather err on the side of
telling maintainers not to bother unless there's something particularly
important to say.
>> <p>
>> + Instruction on how to use and manage a Debian source package
>> + can be written in a <file>debian/README.source</file> documentation
>> + file.
>> + </p>
> IMO, this is too vague, I'd like to see VCS mentioned as a concept,
> otherwise the reader will likely miss the point of this change.
Also, "use" seems a bit odd to me. Hopefully all Debian source packages
are used in exactly the same way: by building binary packages from them.
:) I think the intention is more specifically to document anything
unusual about maintaining the package that others need to be aware of.
> If the policy maintainers want a bug report to keep track of this,
> please say so.
Yes, please. Otherwise I'll lose it.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: