Thanks to your consideration on this proposal, and sorry to be late
in answering.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at "13 Jun 2000 00:04:48 -0400",
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Taketoshi Sano) writes:
>
> > With this consideration, I propose the modification of our polic
> Thanks to your consideration on this proposal, and sorry to be late in
> answering.
[ ... ]
> Well, what I wish to target with this proposal, is "let our users know
> more about the packages which they use".
[ ... ]
Thank you for your explanation. I have a better understanding now of
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> > So I think to use README.Debian is appropriate.
>
> I disagree. Often README.Debian is used for more general things, such
> as explaining how a package is configured when built (compile-time
> options), how the Debian package differs from other versio
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:59:15AM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> I think that an explanation of the choice of section in the Debian archive
> in which the package appears is more closely related to the contents of
> the copyright file than what is currently being placed by maintainers in
> the README.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi people,
I don't think the copyright file should explain the modifications made in
the Debian package compared to the upstream one. The purpose of the
changelog.Debian(.gz) file is to describe such changes (and any others), so
this is a needless duplica
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Section 2.4.4 "Documenting your changes" contains a paragraph talking about
the copyright file, but that doesn't fit in the contents of the paragraphs
before and after, which talk about the debian/changelog file. Furthermore,
placement of both the cop
"C. Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So. What about, instead of using something in the README.Debian,
> create a standard README.non-free, and include it in non-free
> packages. This makes more sense, and can include a standard "why
> non-free is generally bad" plus specific reasons.
I don't w
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think the copyright file should explain the modifications made
> in the Debian package compared to the upstream one. The purpose of
> the changelog.Debian(.gz) file is to describe such changes (and any
> others), so this is a needless duplication of
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:32:03PM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> > I don't think the copyright file should explain the modifications made
> > in the Debian package compared to the upstream one. The purpose of
> > the changelog.Debian(.gz) file is to describe such changes (and any
> > others), so this
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But forcing the maintainer to make a nice little summary and update it
> every time s/he makes a change in the upstream sources is not really
> what most of us want, or what most of our users need ;o) I'm known for
> making pedantic changes in stuff I packa
On 16-Jun-00, 14:32 (CDT), Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have always considered the copyright file as the place to go when
> one needed to determine what has been done to the upstream sources by
> the Debian maintainer. (In one sense, it is a summary of the .diff.gz
> file). It is ce
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:35:17PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:59:15AM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> > I think that an explanation of the choice of section in the Debian archive
> > in which the package appears is more closely related to the contents of
> > the copyright fil
12 matches
Mail list logo
