On 19/08/08 at 17:19 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 03:17:44PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 15/08/08 at 11:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > > >> First, section 4.14 should list things that one does not need to > > > >> describe in debian/README.source. For example, the use of one of the > > > >> "standard" patch systems (quilt, dpatch, simple-patchsys) doesn't need > > > >> to be documented, since every NMUer should be able to work with them. > > > > > > I don't agree. This was one of the things that came up specifically in > > > the original discussion that led to the README.source compromise. If > > > nothing else, README.source tells people that yes, this is bog-standard > > > quilt or dpatch, so they don't have to figure out which it is and they > > > don't have to wonder whether there's something weird at work. > > > > > > I would like this file to continue to contain pointers to the standard > > > documentation for quilt or dpatch if those patch systems are used. We > > > allowed for a pointer specifically so that all you have to do is include a > > > line or two of reference. For example, I use: > > > > > > | This package uses quilt to manage all modifications to the upstream > > > | source. Changes are stored in the source package as diffs in > > > | debian/patches and applied during the build. Please see: > > > | > > > | /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source > > > | > > > | for more information on how to apply the patches, modify patches, or > > > | remove a patch. > > > > > > quilt and dpatch could probably usefully recommend boilerplate text. > > > > > > >> Another example is build systems: cdbs is used by >20% of our packages, > > > >> so I don't think that one need to document its use. > > > > > > > I think the better way is do it similar to copyright: for common > > > > patch/build system we should include only a link to the relative > > > > document. Maybe on a common package (build essential or dpkg-dev) or on > > > > patch system package (but in this case we should push stronger the > > > > maintainer to include the relevant informations). > > > > > > Which is what Policy already says, and quilt, for example, provides such a > > > document for README.source to link to. So I don't think Policy should be > > > changed here. > > > > But that won't work if we want to include more info in README.source. > > > > What about moving to a machine-parseable format, such as: > > > > Patch-system: quilt > > Patch-system-doc: /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source > > This does about the same as grepping the build-dep for quilt.
No, a build-dependency such as gnome-pkg-tools or ruby-pkg-tools could depend on quilt itself. For example, ruby-pkg-tools depends on cdbs, so each package doesn't depend on cdbs directly. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
