Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
On 23-Aug-00, 18:17 (CDT), Daniel Barclay <email@example.com> wrote:
> > From: Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > ... Current policy
> > requires that /usr/doc/<package> exist (possibly as a symlink to
> > /usr/share/doc/<package>).
> Then why don't more package implement that policy?
Because they're *broken*, as I said before. Instead of arguing here, why
don't you report bugs against the broken packages?
> > It is not the maintainer's job to keep a packages upstream documentation
> > up-to-date. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
> So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers
> should clean up upstream documentation.
You said that if the upstream package doesn't have an "orientation"
document, then we should create policy to mandate that the Debian
maintainer write such a document. You said that if the upstream
documentation was jumbled or out of date, then the maintainer need to
fix it, or provide a replacement. If that's not what you wanted them to
do, what exactly *did* you want, and how does it help?
> I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains
> a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is
> easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian
> README file.
And what content do you want in it? From your previous posts, I
understood that you wanted an overview of the package contents (dpkg
-L), a list and description of other relevant documents, and perhaps
a "where to go next". That sounds like (what is properly) upstream
documentation to me. If a maintainer chooses to write such a document
(and possibly submit it upstream), then that's great. Having such a
document mandated is not.
> If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless.
I don't know what Debian thinks. I only know what I think.
Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)