Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > + <p> > + <file>debian/README.source</file> may also include any other > + information that would be helpful to someone modifying the > + source package. Even if the package doesn't fit the above > + description, maintainers are encouraged to document in a > + <file>debian/README.source</file> file any source package with a > + particularly complex or unintuitive source layout or build > + system (for example, a package that builds the same source > + multiple times to generate different binary packages). > + </p> > + </sect> > </chapt>
I suggest to end this paragraph with + system (for example, a package that builds the same source + multiple times to generate different binary packages, or a + package which had to change the upstream tarball due to + technical or license reasons). Rationale: The developer's reference describes in 6.7.8 Best practices for orig.tar.gz files how to document properly any changes that need to be done to the orig.tar.gz, and recommends the name README.Debian-source. This is the only mention of that filename in devref, and README.source is not mentioned at all. Actually, I think that name, README.Debian-source, is even better for the patch system issue, too, since it's about Debian-specific modifications of the source. But anyway, I think that we can expect either of the names already being in use, following the advice of the developer's reference, whereas documenting the multiple binary package thing in that file is probably new. If we give examples, we should indeed use the most relevant ones. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
