On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.8.3.0 > > Hi Policy hackers. > > I feel there is a problem with ยง4.14 ("Source package handling: > debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present. > > Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system > require a README.source is damaging the concept of README.source - as the > archive grows more boilerplate descriptions on how to invoke quilt et al, I > fear maintainers will simply not bother to consult this file when examining > a package. > > This is particularly unfortunate as, not only can the file be extremely > useful, I fear it will fuel a cycle of maintainers not updating the file > with information as it does not get read anymore. > > Besides, the concept of boilerplate is hardly anthemic in Debian. > > If the motivation behind README.source is to highlight non-trivial > packaging, then many packages can be presented that are trivial dispite > using a patch system. My own conclusion is that the adoption of dpatch or > quilt is so common that the skills for it may be assumed. > > To get things rolling, I propose that we temper: > > | This explanation should include specific commands and mention any > | additional required Debian packages. It should not assume familiarity > | with any specific Debian packaging system or patch management tools. > > .. with something subjective like "any non-standard Debian packaging > system". This would still ask maintainers to document the parts of their > packages that would be unfamiliar to most developers, whilst avoiding > maintainers including essays on how to invoke pbuilder and other nonsense. > > Whilst using a subjective like this isn't desirable, it does avoid having to > enumerate specific programs that are exempt from explanation, which doesn't > really smell right for the Policy. > > Thoughts?
1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove the need for patch system altogether. 2) Documentation for debian/README.source for dpatch and quilt is useful, and it can be simply supplied in /usr/share/doc/{dpatch,quilt}. Then debian/README.source only need to say that we use dpatch as documented in /usr/share/doc/dpatch/README.source.gz. 3) If a package is lacking debian/README.source, then one should expect that the source is ready to be used. If it not the case, even an empty debian/README.source is better than none. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org