Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The developer's reference describes in
6.7.8 Best practices for orig.tar.gz files
how to document properly any changes that need to be done to the
orig.tar.gz, and recommends the name README.Debian-source. This
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the devref instructions are wrong. The proper location for
this information is debian/copyright, which is already required to
contain information about the provenance of the upstream source.
I take this
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:21:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Explaining where and how the .orig.tar.gz file was generated to me
falls into the category of saying where the upstream source was
obtained.
It does not.
Yes, actually, it does.
You're
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:21:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the devref instructions are wrong. The proper location for
this information is debian/copyright, which is already required to
contain
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ p
+ filedebian/README.source/file may also include any other
+ information that would be helpful to someone modifying the
+ source package. Even if the package doesn't fit the above
+ description, maintainers are encouraged
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest to end this paragraph with
+ system (for example, a package that builds the same source
+ multiple times to generate different binary packages, or a
+ package which had to change the upstream tarball due to
+ technical
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, here is a new and hopefully final version of the README.source
patch. If you have any other comments or concerns, please speak up
now; otherwise, I will apply this patch for the next Policy release.
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, here is a new and hopefully final version of the README.source
patch. If you have any other comments or concerns, please speak up now;
otherwise, I will apply this patch for the next Policy release.
Seconded.
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller
Okay, here is a new and hopefully final version of the README.source
patch. If you have any other comments or concerns, please speak up now;
otherwise, I will apply this patch for the next Policy release.
--- orig/policy.sgml
+++ mod/policy.sgml
@@ -1926,6 +1926,19 @@
possible is
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:36:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jörg Sommer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The rest looks good and I agree that such a source is useful, but it
should also be allowed to refer to a central document like
/u/s/d/dpatch/README.source. I expect that many README.source
Hi,
Russ Allbery schrieb am Tue 01. Jan, 22:54 (-0800):
+ filedebian/README.source/file documentation file is
+ recommended. This file should explain how to do all of the
+ following:
+ enumlist
+ itemGenerate the fully patched source, in a form ready for
Jörg Sommer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery schrieb am Tue 01. Jan, 22:54 (-0800):
+ filedebian/README.source/file documentation file is
+ recommended. This file should explain how to do all of the
+ following:
+enumlist
+ itemGenerate the fully
Hi,
(If patched is in use by one of the major patch systems today and I just
forgot about it, please let me know.)
Part of the original thread was picking something that currently wasn't
used so that we could be assured that we weren't changing the semantics of
something already out
Hi Russ,
First, thanks for your great work on this bug.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is the last Policy bug I had tagged as wording. It started with a
proposal for a README.source file documenting how to do things with a
package that uses a non-trivial
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Accordingly, I think moving forward with specifying a README.source
file that explains the above three or four points is something we can
reach consensus on. I'm not as sure about
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Russ,
First, thanks for your great work on this bug.
Thanks! It feels good to go back and resolve long-standing issues.
+ prngdpkg-buildpackage/prgn to produce a modified package
---^
Seems you've
This is the last Policy bug I had tagged as wording. It started with a
proposal for a README.source file documenting how to do things with a
package that uses a non-trivial source format, and then expanded into
standardizing debian/rules targets for doing various things.
Having reviewed the
17 matches
Mail list logo
