Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Anyone who hasn't seen this particular package yet, will be helped by a
three-page README.source explaining how the source is laid out.
Yes.. but at the cost of making README.source useless for the vastly more
common case.
We would all like better documentation of
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:48:25AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
But would such a pointer be valuable enough to mitigate these concerns? For
a newbie, the answer might very well be yes. However, this seems like a
weak and relatively rare case to optimise for, compounded by the high cost
of
* Chris Lamb la...@debian.org [090908 02:02]:
Such phrasing will result in README.source files saying
This package uses quilt, as documented in
/usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source
Whilst I quite like the idea of allowing source documentation to be
satisfied by build dependencies, a
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
I think having short README.source is better than having none. If
there is a short one in normal cases, people can always look at it
and see at one glance whether it is what they expect or if it needs
special consideration.
My main concern is
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't
need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers
to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for
things which actually were unusual, and
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:31:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't
need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers
to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for
things which
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:48:25AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I would instead suggest changing the next paragraph to something like
the following:
``In case a package uses a build system for which documentation
sufficient to satisfy this requirement exists in a
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I would instead suggest changing the next paragraph to something like
the following:
``In case a package uses a build system for which documentation
sufficient to satisfy this requirement exists in a file installed by one
of the package's build dependencies, this
Bill Allombert wrote:
1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove the
need for patch system altogether.
Oh, yes please. But, as I currently understand it, existing packages will
not magically start using this format, and thus we are likely to find
ourselves growing a
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org (25/08/2009):
That's my point. Without README.source (assuming the rules are
changed to not force the creation of that file for common patch
systems), seeing debian/patches/ is not enough to know if the
patches
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 §4.14 (Source package handling:
debian/README.source) that is a little harmful at present.
Basically, I feel that assuming that all
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org writes:
Bill Allombert wrote:
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.
What would an empty README.source
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, but I'd like to specifically
spell out what the exceptions are. I think the important exception would
be that packages that use quilt or dpatch in the default mode, applying
all patches in
Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't know if we should include CDBS's basic patch system as well.
If you create a list of what doesn't need a README.source, sure.
Emilio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 §4.14 (Source package handling:
debian/README.source) that is a little harmful at present.
Basically, I feel that assuming that all
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr (25/08/2009):
1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove
the need for patch system altogether.
1) That's not ready yet.
2) Documentation for debian/README.source for dpatch and quilt is
useful, and it can be simply
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org (25/08/2009):
1) That's not ready yet.
That's not true. It's not deployed on ftp-master […]
My point exactly: I can't upload such a package *right now*. Therefore,
I call that “not ready yet”.
3) If a package is lacking debian/README.source, then one
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr (25/08/2009):
1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove
the need for patch system altogether.
1) That's not ready yet.
That's not true. It's not deployed on ftp-master
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I can certainly understand the point of view of Bill. It's not noise
if you assume that you should not need to do anything before being
able to work on the package... and if you do, you should find the
required hint in README.source. The
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org (25/08/2009):
The existence of a debian/patches directory proves that the
package uses some patch system and that he should investigate
more.
But this assertion is not true once new source packages are
“ready”. :) Some forward-looking can't hurt when we
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org (25/08/2009):
The existence of a debian/patches directory proves that the
package uses some patch system and that he should investigate
more.
But this assertion is not true once new source packages are
Bill Allombert wrote:
1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove the
need for patch system altogether.
Ehem, it actually uses the patch system, difference is that it is no longer
under the control of the rules file.
2) Documentation for debian/README.source for
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org (25/08/2009):
The existence of a debian/patches directory proves that the
package uses some patch system and that he should investigate
more.
But this assertion is not true once new source packages are
“ready”. :) Some forward-looking can't
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Hi Policy hackers.
I feel there is a problem with §4.14 (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
Chris Lamb wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Hi Policy hackers.
I feel there is a problem with §4.14 (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
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort poch...@gmail.com (24/08/2009):
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
Chris Lamb la...@debian.org writes:
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
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Chris Lamb la...@debian.org writes:
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
Hi,
Chris Lamb wrote:
Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
require a README.source is damaging the concept of README.source
Seconded.
On Monday 24 August 2009 17:46:25 Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, but I'd like
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org writes:
Some exceptions are indeed required, but like Andrew already said it
should be done with care. Some wording more generic than just standard
quilt and dpatch using lists of patches. I think everyone is used to
dpatch and quilt with lists of patches
30 matches
Mail list logo
