Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug #42554: A proposal for README.Debian
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Aug 1999 09:59:40 +0000
Received: (qmail 18258 invoked from network); 6 Aug 1999 09:59:40 -0000
Received: from nefertiti.pasteur.fr (157.99.64.20)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 1999 09:59:40 -0000
Received: from ezili.sis.pasteur.fr ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [157.99.60.56])
by nefertiti.pasteur.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22518;
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 11:59:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ezili.sis.pasteur.fr ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by ezili.sis.pasteur.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id LAA22644;
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 11:59:38 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A proposal for README.Debian
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 11:59:38 +0200
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.0
Severity: wishlist
[Cc: me if you reply, I'm not on debian-policy.]
The current Policy manual says almost nothing about the README.Debian file. I
suggest to add a section 6.8 (in the "Documentation" chapter) or something
like that:
6.8 README.Debian
Your package may contain a /usr/share/doc/package/README.Debian file. It is
mandatory to have one if you modified the source code of the upstream package.
This file should document:
- the changes you made for the Debian package. Remember that some upstream
authors are very picky about such changes and that users have the right to be
informed of the Debian peculiarities. Otherwise, they may fill in a bug report
upstream for Debian changes, thus confusing the upstream maintainer. Yes, the
'.diff' file exists but it's easier to read a three-lines summary than a diff
file.
- the rationale for choosing such or such options in the debian/rules when
calling configure and/or make.
- the Debian packages you need to recompile this package. The Debian packaging
system does not know about formal source dependencies. Therefore, if the
source of a package does not compile, the user has to guess what you need. It
is better to tell it explicitely.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 42554-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jun 2001 18:16:57 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 13 13:16:57 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 206.180.143.9.adsl.hal-pc.org (speedy.private)
[::ffff:206.180.143.9]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15AFCK-0003UA-00; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:57 -0500
Received: by speedy.private (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 900324717; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug #42554: A proposal for README.Debian
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discussed -- I'm not trying to force any
particular disposition, just taking my best shot at resolving dead
issues.
Bug #42554: A proposal for README.Debian
Summary: Proposed that a /usr/share/doc/package/README.Debian file
sanctioned and specified appropriate content. Some of that content
currently appears in the copyright file. Particular items that brought
objection were build time dependencies (now part of Build-Depends
et. al.) and compiler options (should be discussed in debian/rules if
necessary). Proposal also made the file required if upstream source
was modified; this also brought objections. Some noted that the
copyright file currently contains things completely unrelated to
copyright. AJ counterproposed a policy mod that would move those items
to README.Debian. People seemed to like that better, but then
discussion died out.
Discussion: I like AJ's proposal, it makes perfect sense. However,
inertia seems against it. I may re-propose his mod.
Action: close
