Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Anyone who hasn't seen this particular package yet, will be helped by a
> three-page README.source explaining how the source is laid out.
Yes.. but at the cost of making README.source useless for the vastly more
common case.
We would all like better documentation of Debi
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 ex
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:31:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't
> > need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers
> > to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for
> > things which
Don Armstrong writes:
> If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't
> need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers
> to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for
> things which actually were unusual, and would obviate
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> 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.
My main concern is ma
* Chris Lamb [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-li
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:48:25AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> 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 exc
Bill Allombert wrote:
> 1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove the
> need for patch system altogether.
Oh, yes please. But, as I currently understand it, existing packages will
not magically start using this format, and thus we are likely to find
ourselves growing a
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, thi
Raphael Geissert writes:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>> 3) If a package is lacking debian/README.source, then one should expect
>> that the source is ready to be used. If it not the case, even an empty
>> debian/README.source is better than none.
>>
>
> What would an empty README.source file mean?
>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.3.0
>
> Hi Policy hackers.
>
> I feel there is a problem with §4.14 ("Source package handling:
> debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present.
>
> Basically, I feel that assuming tha
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog (25/08/2009):
> > That's my point. Without README.source (assuming the rules are
> > changed to not force the creation of that file for common patch
> > systems), seeing debian/patches/ is not enough to know if the
> > patches are alrea
Raphael Hertzog (25/08/2009):
> > > > The existence of a debian/patches directory proves that the
> > > > package uses some patch system and that he should investigate
> > > > more.
> > >
> > > But this assertion is not true once new source packages are
> > > “ready”. :) Some forward-looking can'
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog (25/08/2009):
> > > The existence of a debian/patches directory proves that the
> > > package uses some patch system and that he should investigate
> > > more.
> >
> > But this assertion is not true once new source packages are
> > “re
Raphael Hertzog (25/08/2009):
> > The existence of a debian/patches directory proves that the
> > package uses some patch system and that he should investigate
> > more.
>
> But this assertion is not true once new source packages are
> “ready”. :) Some forward-looking can't hurt when we design po
Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> 1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove the
> need for patch system altogether.
Ehem, it actually uses the patch system, difference is that it is no longer
under the control of the rules file.
>
> 2) Documentation for debian/README.source f
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > I can certainly understand the point of view of Bill. It's not noise
> > if you assume that you should not need to do anything before being
> > able to work on the package... and if you do, you should find the
> > required hint in README.source. The e
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Bill Allombert (25/08/2009):
> > 1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove
> > the need for patch system altogether.
>
> 1) That's not ready yet.
That's not true. It's not deployed on ftp-master but all the code needed
exis
Raphael Hertzog (25/08/2009):
> > 1) That's not ready yet.
>
> That's not true. It's not deployed on ftp-master […]
My point exactly: I can't upload such a package *right now*. Therefore,
I call that “not ready yet”.
> > > 3) If a package is lacking debian/README.source, then one should
> > >
Bill Allombert (25/08/2009):
> 1) We should move to new source package format (3.0 etc) that remove
> the need for patch system altogether.
1) That's not ready yet.
> 2) Documentation for debian/README.source for dpatch and quilt is
> useful, and it can be simply supplied in
> /usr/share/doc/{dp
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.3.0
>
> Hi Policy hackers.
>
> I feel there is a problem with §4.14 ("Source package handling:
> debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present.
>
> Basically, I feel that assuming tha
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't know if we should include CDBS's basic patch system as well.
If you create a list of what doesn't need a README.source, sure.
Emilio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, but I'd like to specifically
> spell out what the exceptions are. I think the important exception would
> be that packages that use quilt or dpatch in the default mode, applying
> all patches in debian/patches
Raphael Geissert writes:
> Some exceptions are indeed required, but like Andrew already said it
> should be done with care. Some wording more generic than just "standard
> quilt and dpatch using lists of patches". I think everyone is used to
> dpatch and quilt with lists of patches in debian/patc
Hi,
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
> require a README.source is damaging the concept of README.source
Seconded.
On Monday 24 August 2009 17:46:25 Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, but I'd lik
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Lamb writes:
>
> > If the motivation behind README.source is to highlight non-trivial
> > packaging, then many packages can be presented that are trivial dispite
> > using a patch system. My own conclusion is that the adoption of dpat
Chris Lamb writes:
> If the motivation behind README.source is to highlight non-trivial
> packaging, then many packages can be presented that are trivial dispite
> using a patch system. My own conclusion is that the adoption of dpatch
> or quilt is so common that the skills for it may be assumed.
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (24/08/2009):
> > Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch
> > system require a README.source is damaging the concept of
> > README.source - as the archive grows more boilerplate descriptions
> > on how to invoke quilt et al, I fear maintainers will
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.3.0
>
> Hi Policy hackers.
>
> I feel there is a problem with §4.14 ("Source package handling:
> debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present.
>
> Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
> r
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Hi Policy hackers.
I feel there is a problem with §4.14 ("Source package handling:
debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present.
Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
require a README.source is damaging the
30 matches
Mail list logo
