* Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> [090908 02:02]:
> > Such phrasing will result in README.source files saying
> >
> > "This package uses quilt, as documented in
> > /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source"
>
> Whilst I quite like the idea of allowing source documentation to be
> satisfied by build dependencies, a single-line README.source still has all
> the drawbacks I originally filed this bug about.
>
> That is to say, the existence of your README.source file would still be a
> false-positive when looking at the package with respect to whether it is
> esoteric in some way. Raphael Geissert also argues this in #73.
I think having short README.source is better than having none.
If there is a short one in normal cases, people can always look at it
and see at one glance whether it is what they expect or if it needs
special consideration.
Some bonus point is that there is a proper transition path from the old
way of not having such a file. Becaus if there is a short file that says
"nothing special here" that is a defined state and you know someone
added it. If there is no file you do not know if that means
"nothing special here, ignore debian/patches as it is preapplied in .diff.gz"
or
"nothing special here, standard quilt patching done at build time"
or
"this package may do something special but noone has yet looked at it".
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
