On 17-Jun-00, 22:57 (CDT), Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [wrt content of README.Debian] > Yes, but it should be general information of this type. I think that a > detailed list of changes to the upstream source does not fit in here. > > When I see "README.Debian", I immediately assume that this is where the > maintainer has included information such as warnings about unusual ways > that the program has been built for Debian or how the Debian package > might differ from the way other distributions (perhaps even the upstream > developers) build and package this software. I don't expect to see > details about changes to the source. Furthermore, unless the Debian > package is really "special" and the Debian package differs significantly > from similar packages distributed from other sources, I don't see the > need for a README.Debian file at all.
It may be that we agree about the content of the README.Debian file: I think that what you're calling "a detailed list of changes to the upstream source" I would call "package.diff.gz" :-). > Therefore, in summary, the copyright file contains the following > information: > > (1) who owns the software, > > (2) the modifications that we have made to the upstream version of the > software that we are distributing, and > > (3) the conditions by which a modified version of the software may be > distributed. > > These three things seem to go well together. In fact, the more that I > think about it, the more convinced I become that Ian Murdock and the > early Debian developers got it right, and the format of the copyright > file makes good sense. Ok, it begins to make sense to me to the content you describe belongs in one file. I'm not sure I like the name "copyright", but changing it at this point would be silly. > When the license is indeed included in the copyright file (for a > nonstandard license), it forms an additional section at the end of the > file, a section in which the license has been copied verbatim into the > file. We are not modifying the document at all. At least, we are not > modifying the content of the document. I don't really think that, > just because the document no longer occupies its own file, we have > modified the document in a significant way. Well, I guess my point was that we try our best to make sure that what we deliver as package.orig.tar.gz is md5sum identical to the original upstream distribution, and my opinion was that we ought to do our best to treat the original copyright/license file the same. Given that most of our licenses are GPL/BSD/Artistic (and thus become references), or must be extracted from source code, then my concern is probably unfounded. All of which leads to a resounding "whatever" with regard to this proposal... Steve
