Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o....@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #543417,
regarding README.source patch system documentation requirements considered
harmful
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
543417: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543417
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Hi Policy hackers.
I feel there is a problem with ยง4.14 ("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 concept of README.source - as the
archive grows more boilerplate descriptions on how to invoke quilt et al, I
fear maintainers will simply not bother to consult this file when examining
a package.
This is particularly unfortunate as, not only can the file be extremely
useful, I fear it will fuel a cycle of maintainers not updating the file
with information as it does not get read anymore.
Besides, the concept of boilerplate is hardly anthemic in Debian.
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.
To get things rolling, I propose that we temper:
| This explanation should include specific commands and mention any
| additional required Debian packages. It should not assume familiarity
| with any specific Debian packaging system or patch management tools.
.. with something subjective like "any non-standard Debian packaging
system". This would still ask maintainers to document the parts of their
packages that would be unfamiliar to most developers, whilst avoiding
maintainers including essays on how to invoke pbuilder and other nonsense.
Whilst using a subjective like this isn't desirable, it does avoid having to
enumerate specific programs that are exempt from explanation, which doesn't
really smell right for the Policy.
Thoughts?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org
`-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix
Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.
The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:
- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
important enough to keep an open bug around;
- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion. A fresh
discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
old bug are unlikely to help very much; or
- issue is not appropriate for Policy.
If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug. However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.
A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
