On 23-Aug-00, 18:17 (CDT), Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ... Current policy > > requires that /usr/doc/<package> exist (possibly as a symlink to > > /usr/share/doc/<package>). > > Then why don't more package implement that policy?
Because they're *broken*, as I said before. Instead of arguing here, why don't you report bugs against the broken packages? > > It is not the maintainer's job to keep a packages upstream documentation > > up-to-date. Sorry, but that's the way it is. > > So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers > should clean up upstream documentation. You said that if the upstream package doesn't have an "orientation" document, then we should create policy to mandate that the Debian maintainer write such a document. You said that if the upstream documentation was jumbled or out of date, then the maintainer need to fix it, or provide a replacement. If that's not what you wanted them to do, what exactly *did* you want, and how does it help? > I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains > a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is > easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian > README file. And what content do you want in it? From your previous posts, I understood that you wanted an overview of the package contents (dpkg -L), a list and description of other relevant documents, and perhaps a "where to go next". That sounds like (what is properly) upstream documentation to me. If a maintainer chooses to write such a document (and possibly submit it upstream), then that's great. Having such a document mandated is not. > If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. I don't know what Debian thinks. I only know what I think. -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
