On 15/08/08 at 16:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 15/08/08 at 11:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> I think the better way is do it similar to copyright: for common > >>> patch/build system we should include only a link to the relative > >>> document. Maybe on a common package (build essential or dpkg-dev) or > >>> on patch system package (but in this case we should push stronger the > >>> maintainer to include the relevant informations). > > >> Which is what Policy already says, and quilt, for example, provides > >> such a document for README.source to link to. So I don't think Policy > >> should be changed here. > > > But that won't work if we want to include more info in README.source. > > Why not? I would think you could include whatever information you want > before or after the pointer to the standard quilt documentation.
I thought you meant "link" as in "symlink". > > What about moving to a machine-parseable format, such as: > > > > Patch-system: quilt > > Patch-system-doc: /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source > > I think that's kind of pointless for human-readable, human-targetted > documention. Why would machines need to parse README.source? Actually, I find it easier to read that than a 4-5 lines blurb that contains exactly the same information. Regarding programs parsing it, For example, apt-get source could display a message about the patch system in use. Or debcheckout could make use of the branch layout somehow. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
