Anthony Towns wrote: > What do people think of: Well, it's significantly different from the original proposal, which I disliked. i like your version much better, and would second it if it were formally proposed.
> --- - Wed Dec 8 22:11:23 1999 > +++ policy.text Wed Dec 8 22:11:11 1999 > @@ -2518,10 +2518,9 @@ > compressed nor be a symbolic link. > > In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources > - (if any) were obtained, and explain briefly what modifications were > - made in the Debian version of the package compared to the upstream > - one. It must name the original authors of the package and the Debian > - maintainer(s) who were involved with its creation. > + (if any) were obtained, and it must name the original authors of > + the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were involved with > + its creation. > > /usr/share/doc/<package-name> may be a symbolic link to a directory in > /usr/share/doc only if two packages both come from the same source and > @@ -2550,11 +2549,13 @@ > after all, the GPL does not "document" anything, it is merely a > license. > > - Do not use the copyright file as a general `README' file. If your > - package has such a file it should be installed in > - `/usr/share/doc/<package>/README' or `README.Debian' or some other > - appropriate place. > +6.6. Debian-specific Documentation > +---------------------------------- > > + A package may contain a file /usr/share/doc/<package>/README.Debian > + (or README.Debian.gz). This should be used to document any > + Debian-specific modifications made to the package, any compilation > + options that have been set, and any other user-visible changes. -- see shy jo
