On Tue,07.Apr.09, 13:24:39, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > > > > Auto generated from what? > > From whatever contains any structured information to be read and added to > README.Debian files if they remain partly non-structured as they currently > are. > > The package contents can be obtained with dpkg. > > That lists only the uninterpreted, raw list of files. > > It doesn't distinguish between entry points vs. other artifacts, say: > - commands meant for the user to execute vs. helper executables > - root info files (command.gz) vs. associated ones (command1.gz, command2.gz) > - commands meant for the user to run vs. daemons started automatically
I'm not sure duplicating information that can be obtained otherwise is a good use of README.Debian > >> > Ok, many of them could be improved, ... > >> > >> Exactly. > >> > >> First we'd need a standard or some guidelines about what should be in > >> there. > > > > It would be quite difficult to write a guideline that would fit for both > > samba and mpd. > > What kind of guidelines are you thinking about? My point was that it would be difficult to write one guideline to fit all. > I'm thinking of things like: > > Include a "Daemons started:" line listing any daemon(s) started by > installing the package. > > How would something like that not fit virtually every package? Because 95% (or more?) of the packages would have Daemons started: none Do you know about debtags? It's work in progress AFAIK, but it would address some of your points. > (Yes, guidelines for pointers to documentation _might_ be a little harder to > make fit all packages, since some have mostly just a manual page, some have > many manual/info/etc. pages, and some packages are just documentation for > something else.) > > > Rather file bugs (preferably with suggested wording or > > even a patch) where you think it's necessary. > > Oh, come on. Wait for each instance of the problem instance of trying to > work out a system (e.g., guidelines/standards) to avoid the problem in the > first place? > > > > I usually find enough information in there to know were to look further. > > The user shouldn't have to dig for some of this information, especially > not in different forms in different packages. Quite true, but what would be a good canonical place to put it? I think, since all this is package related, the package manager should be that agregator of information. For example aptitude can already display debtags and 'changelog.Debian'. Maybe you could file a whishlist bug to also display the README.Debian? Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
