Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 05:48PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> is being used.) You must not include the ``/etc/rcn.d`` directories >> -themselves in the archive either. (Only the ``sysvinit`` package may do >> -so.) >> +themselves in the archive either. (Only the ``init-system-helpers`` >> +package may do so.) > Likewise, isn't this a semantic change? This is, but I think it's a bookkeeping change. Those directories are in init-system-helpers rather than sysvinit in the archive right now, and that clearly shouldn't be a policy violation. Ideally it should probably be in a separate commit, but in looking at this again I also want to change "may do so" to "is permitted to do so." I can break it out if needed, but I'd rather commit it as part of this set of changes (and will document it separately in debian/changelog; I don't think it warrants adding to upgrading-checklist since it only affects one set of maintainers who already know). >> @@ -797,14 +798,13 @@ the upstream tarball. In order to satisfy the DFSG >> for packages in >> 2. include a copy of the sources in the ``debian/missing-sources`` >> directory. >> >> -There is an optional convention to organise the contents of >> -``debian/missing-sources`` in the following way. For a sourceless >> -file ``foo`` in the subdirectory ``bar`` of the upstream tarball, >> -where the source of ``foo`` has extension ``baz``, the source is to be >> -located at ``debian/missing-sources/bar/foo.baz``. For example, >> -according to this convention, the C source code of an executable >> -``checksum/util`` is to be located at >> -``debian/missing-sources/checksum/util.c``. >> +Package maintainers are encouraged to use the following convention to >> +organize the contents of ``debian/missing-sources``: for a sourceless file >> +``foo`` in the subdirectory ``bar`` of the upstream tarball, where the >> +source of ``foo`` has extension ``baz``, the source is to be located at >> +``debian/missing-sources/bar/foo.baz``. For example, according to this >> +convention, the C source code of an executable ``checksum/util`` would be >> +located at ``debian/missing-sources/checksum/util.c``. > I don't think this should be strengthened to something Policy > encourages, or if it should, we should discuss it in a separate bug. So > I'd like to suggest using none of the magic words in this paragraph, > just starting it with "There is a convention to organise ..." I think this is a change where the distinction between optional and encouraged is valuable and this would have been written as encouraged if we had that concept. There's not much point in a convention unless we advise maintainers to follow it, and that seems like an appropriate use of Policy advice. Does that make sense? I can revise it if you don't like it after that explanation, but it feels perfect for "encourage." -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
