On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Mays wrote: <snip>
> > So I think to use README.Debian is appropriate. > > I disagree. Often README.Debian is used for more general things, such > as explaining how a package is configured when built (compile-time > options), how the Debian package differs from other versions of the > same software available from other sources, general notes from the > Debian developer about how a package should be used, etc. Usually, > the information in this file is not directly related to the Debian > project at all. The copyright file, IMHO, is used for Debian related > information. Consider what is already contained in this file: > > (1) copyright and licensing information for the software (of course); > > (2) the full name of the package; > > (3) the location on the internet of the upstream sources; > > (4) the name of the Debian maintainer, usually accompanied by a > history of the maintainers who have worked on the package; and > > (5) a catalog of the changes made to the upstream sources in converting > them to a Debian package. <snip> So. What about, instead of using something in the README.Debian, create a standard README.non-free, and include it in non-free packages. This makes more sense, and can include a standard "why non-free is generally bad" plus specific reasons. -- Charles Cooke, Network Engineer HighwayOne Corporation Ltd.
