On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:48:25AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > I would instead suggest changing the next paragraph to something like > > the following: > > > > ``In case a package uses a build system for which documentation > > sufficient to satisfy this requirement exists in a file installed by one > > of the package's build dependencies, this file should be referred to > > from the README.source file, rather than copied into it.'' > [..] > > 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. > > But would such a pointer be valuable enough to mitigate these concerns? For > a newbie, the answer might very well be "yes". However, this seems like a > weak and relatively rare case to optimise for, compounded by the high cost > of excessive false-positives.
It is valuable, because there are various way to use dpatch, quilt etc. in packaging, some of them let the source ready after unpacking, some of them not. A statement the package is following a specific interface is far reliable than just assuming that a build-dependency imply an interface which is not true. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
