Scripsit Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>/usr/share/doc/aptitude/README is upstream's entire user manual in
>>text format. It contains a short section on how to get aptitude if
>>one does not have a .deb available. I think this is fair, but it is of
>>
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:02:37 +0200, Henning Makholm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>/usr/share/doc/aptitude/README is upstream's entire user manual in
>text format. It contains a short section on how to get aptitude if
>one does not have a .deb available. I think this is fair, but it is of
>course corr
I demand that Henning Makholm may or may not have written...
[snip]
> There is a fairly widespread convention of putting compilation instructions
> in an INSTALL file, but there is no similarly widespread convention for
> putting information about, say, "you'll need these libraries",
ISTM that IN
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Idea 1:
lintian: W: /usr/share/doc/README contains installation instructions
I like that one.
Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
lines that start with whitespace plus "./configure ", but how reliable
is that?
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:55:11PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> > whether to compress the README and similar files, I always end up
> > typing less /usr/share/doc/blah/README.Debian[.gz] using tab
> > completion and have to go back and correcting my c
Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While exceptions certainly exist, most of the time, a user reporting a
> bug on a Debian package directly upstream is not appropriate. It is
> better for the user to first seek help from their distribution. Then,
> if it is clear that the issue is upst
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 08:54 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't understand why people keep saying that upstream bug reporting
> instructions are irrelevant to Debian. Surely I'm not the only person who
> wants to be able to discuss some issues directly with upstream when
> they're not in the slig
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 16:31 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I don't think there is a way to get around this difference. There is a
> fairly widespread convention of putting compilation instructions in an
> INSTALL file, but there is no similarly widespread convention for
> putting information about
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Requirements on upstream README and information that's useful within
> Debian differ. It often contains information about building,
> installation or bug reporting which is not relevant to Debian.
I don't understand why people keep saying that upstrea
Scripsit "Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I agree that currently many people will automatically install this
> README in the /u/s/doc dir, regardless of its contents, while it
> would make more sense to make a judgement whether including it
> actually adds value.
I notice that dh-make will
Scripsit Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 10:08 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> Requirements on upstream README and information that's useful within
>> Debian differ. It often contains information about building, installation
>> or bug reporting which is not relevant to D
Scripsit "W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:42:27PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
>> lines that start with whitespace plus "./configure ", but how reliable
>> is that?
> Attached test found some cu
W. Borgert wrote:
> - "Readme file for ."
>
> Really?
Can be useful on printouts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 10:08 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, August 15, 2005 01:42, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > Why not just help improve upstream's README when you encounter poor
> > quality work? That's what you'd do with code, wouldn't you?
>
> Requirements on upstream README and informati
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:42:27PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
> lines that start with whitespace plus "./configure ", but how reliable
> is that?
Attached test found some culprits: aptitude autofs dbus-1
dbus-glib-1 deborph
Scripsit "W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Idea 1:
>> lintian: W: /usr/share/doc/README contains installation instructions
> I like that one.
Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
lines that
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:53:37AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Go ahead and file bugs. With patches. And perhaps an explanation
> of why a README in the .deb is not required and, if it exists, is not
> required to equal upstream's.
>
> When a few dozen of your patches have made it to sid, conde
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Idea 1:
> lintian: W: /usr/share/doc/README contains installation instructions
I like that one.
Cheers,
--
Wolfgang Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 01:25:37PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Perhaps the upstream README should be renamed 'README.upstream'?
Given the context, it would probably make more sense to rename it to IGNOREME.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
It is not said that upstream README's are useless per se; I think
W.Borgert's point is the following: judge each upstream README on its own
merits. I agree that currently many people will automatically install this
README in the /u/s/doc dir, regardles
Scripsit "W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:18:39AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> ...a lot of wise things...
> I have to agree. So how to proceed? File minor bugs against
> README files, that contain predominantly useless information?
What other way would there be
On Mon, August 15, 2005 01:42, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Why not just help improve upstream's README when you encounter poor
> quality work? That's what you'd do with code, wouldn't you?
Requirements on upstream README and information that's useful within
Debian differ. It often contains information
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps the upstream README should be renamed 'README.upstream'?
Why? We currently do not denote every file shippped by upstream with a
.upstream suffix but instead earmark added, Debian-specific items
using the same base name with a .Debian suffix.
This a
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:18:39AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
...a lot of wise things...
I have to agree. So how to proceed? File minor bugs against
README files, that contain predominantly useless information?
Cheers,
--
W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
Scripsit Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 12:55 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>> While I agree the README can be confusing, I think we do a disservice
>> to our upstream by not including it.
> That's my gut feeling too.
I don't think we should base gut feelings solel
On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 12:55 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> While I agree the README can be confusing, I think we do a disservice
> to our upstream by not including it.
That's my gut feeling too.
> I think a better solution would be to duplicate all the important
> information about the softw
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > their files. Or do you suggest to tag all files in Debian with
> > such an information? :-)
>
> Open a man page.
Because it has a NAME section? OK, you won :-)
Cheers,
--
W. Borgert
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> their files. Or do you suggest to tag all files in Debian with
> such an information? :-)
Open a man page.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I think a better solution would be to duplicate all the important
> information about the software into the README.Debian and train users
> to read that soley.
If I was king of the world (or at least of Debian), I would go the
more radical route
Perhaps the upstream README should be renamed 'README.upstream'?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:02:36PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
> > - "Readme file for ."
> >
> > Really?
>
> Well, you want to know which package a README belongs to when you get a README
> without any other information... right?
Nice
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:02:36PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
>
> - "Readme file for ."
>
> Really?
Well, you want to know which package a README belongs to when you get a README
without any other information... right?
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
U
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:55:11PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> While I agree the README can be confusing, I think we do a disservice
> to our upstream by not including it. Some readers may be interested in
> the people who brought them the software, or knowing upstream's email
/usr/share/d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W. Borgert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to start yet another discussion about our packaging
> practise. Did anyone ever take a look at our
> /usr/share/doc//README{,.gz} files? If the users have
> difficulties with a package, we often reply "Why didn't you
Hi,
I have to start yet another discussion about our packaging
practise. Did anyone ever take a look at our
/usr/share/doc//README{,.gz} files? If the users have
difficulties with a package, we often reply "Why didn't you read
the README? It's called README for a reason!" However, the
README f
35 matches
Mail list logo
