On 12/08/08 at 12:25 -0300, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:09:09AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > However, I don't think that it's the main purpose of > > debian/README.source (which is to document how to get the source of the > > package ready for editing). Whether to encourage direct commits is > > Not only, quoting from policy: > > `debian/README.source' may also include any other information that > would be helpful to someone modifying the source package. Sure, but with the way the policy is currently written, it's still not the _main purpose_ of debian/README.source. I agree that this is probably a bug in policy, and that this should probably be fixed, so that debian/README.source becomes the place to document everything related to a specific package's development (use of patch systems, branch layout in the VCS repository, acceptance of non-maintainer commits, etc.). Also, maybe it's still time to switch to a different, machine-parseable format. Looking at the 306 source packages using README.source (see gluck:~lucas/readme.source), it's obvious that the lack of guidelines on how to use this file is limiting its usefulness (unless the goal is to generate lots of variants of quilt howtos ;) > NMUers are modifying source packages, so in theory there they can also > find info targeted to them. But I agree that it is somehow blurry if > that info belong to that file or not. So if you want to drop it, drop > it, we can postpone the change. I don't garantee that I'll accept it, but could you prepare a patch that would mention README.source, staying vague on the gory details? You can use gluck:~lucas/pkgs.dbk as a basis. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature