On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:33:31PM +0100, gregor herrmann <gre...@debian.org> wrote: > While I can't say for sure why it was originally installed as an > example instead of under /usr/bin, I see a small problem with moving > it now: The script doesn't have any documentation, and installing > "binaries" without manpages is a violation (of a "should") in Debian > Policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#manual-pages > > If you can add a bit of POD to the script, I see no problem with > installing it into the "right" place.
I'm sorry, but that's rather distasteful blackmail - where does the debian policy say you can break functionality of an upstream package bedcause of a missing manpage? Where does it say lack of a manpage is a violation of policy? Where does it say you can blackmail upstream maintainers in this way? I don't see where this is allowed or required by any debian policy. The way I see it, if debian breaks upstream packages on purpose and resorts to unethical blackmailing of the upstream authors before fixing their packaging then debian is simply not worth supporting at all. So, it really is debians choice - either package it correctly, or break it. But don't blackmail upstream authors "if you do this patch for us, we might consider not breaking your package" - this is simply unethical, and rather surprising behaviour if you ask me. -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ----==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\