On 21 Feb 2019, at 15:16, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote:
>> libhts2,
>
> I do not think that it is necessary in this library package since the
> README does not really contain information which is relevant for users
> who simply install libhts2 as a dependency of other packages.
Agreed -- I was initially going to file this just against libhts-dev, but then
got distracted when I filed it against the source package.
>> the badly-named tabix)
>
> Thanks for the interesting hint. What better name would you suggest.
I used to imagine distros would call this libhts-utils or similar, as it
provides several command-line utilities that are bundled with HTSlib. But
perhaps Debian has been shipping a tabix package since the pre-htslib samtools
0.1.x days and would like to keep with that tradition.
>> are missing the upstream release's README file. It would be good to install
>> this file, even though it doesn't currently contain a great deal of salient
>> information. (The upstream release's INSTALL file is also missing, but that
>> is of course appropriate for binary packages.)
I see you've used README*. Do Debian packages get built from an upstream
release tarball or from a Git working directory? The results will be different
in the two cases, as README.md is omitted from release tarballs.
The original thinking was that README and README.md would contain much the same
information (so that the README description would be shown in GitHub repo home
pages), and README.md would additionally contain build information specific to
building from Git (i.e. instructions to run autoconf etc, which has already
been done when starting from a release tarball).
So I was imagining that Debian would add README rather than both README and
README.md. However you should do what you see fit, and it may be immaterial if
starting from the upstream release tarball as there will be only one file
matching README*.
Thanks for responding to this ridiculously quickly!
John
