Le Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:22:51AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > First, section 4.14 should list things that one does not need to > describe in debian/README.source. For example, the use of one of the > "standard" patch systems (quilt, dpatch, simple-patchsys) doesn't need > to be documented, since every NMUer should be able to work with them. … > Also, it would be interesting to extend the use of debian/README.source > to other areas, such as: > - whether the maintainer encourages commits for other people directly to > the package's VCS. > - the branch layout in the package's VCS.
Dear all, more than three years later, the 3.0 (quilt) source format has eroded the use of patch systems. The use of debian/README.source to document them has also been questionned in http://bugs.debian.org/543417, but the less frequent they become, the more the documentation becomes relevant. Despite the following notion is still controversial, I think that little by little, when packages are managed in a VCS, the preferred form for modification is not the source package downloaded from our archive, but the VCS clone or checkout itself. I would therefore like to propose, in line with the original suggestion of Lucas, to add a paragraph to §4.14 so that it explicitely mentions the documentation of the VCS where the source package is developed. This could be something like the following. When the source package is developped with a version control system and its repository is publicly available, README.source may document information not available elsewhere such as whether the maintainer encourages commits, if the branch layout is not usual. With my experience limited to make standard packages in a team, I have no other addition or change to suggest for §4.14. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
