Hi, On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:31:18PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > I am sorry for the "tone". It wasn't against "Debian". It is only > because of Upstream. And I think this is a problem with my > none-native-english, too.
OK, I see. > > please do submit a bug for that package. > > I did for all the points. A, indeed, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?dist=unstable;submitter=c.buhtz%40posteo.jp shows quite a lot of them. Sorry for not checking earlier. > > > > A nice to have (for me a must have) would be that upstream have to > > > > provide a manpage. > > > > Yup, we agree. "Each program, utility, and function should have an > > associated manual page included in the same package." > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1 . If a > > manpage is lacking, please report that as a bug. > > This doesn't point out who should provide the documentation. And that > is the point I want to bring up here. But of course I know this won't > change in the near feature. I just want to discuss about it and learn > from the Debian-oids. :) > > e.g. The manpage of "libnotify" was written by debian-people. It is > debian-specific. In the upstream (gnome) source there is no manpage. > In my opinion, some people didn't checked very well while the > contribution process: > 1. Someone contributed libnotify code to gnome. Someone accepted that > code but didn't take care about that there was no documentation. > 2. Someone accepted libnotify as a debian package. She/he found out > that there is no manpage, wrote one and did work upstream should > have made. > > to 1. I would never accept code without documentation in a project. > Here I don't have to explain how much workload undocumented code > produce while the lifetime of a software project. This is not about > saying "No" to the contributing person. It is about taking she/him by > her/his hand and explain and show how to provide well documented code. > > to 2. It shouldn't not be up to debian to make the "dirty" work for > other projects. I am not sure how other devs think about that but for > me it would be kind of an accolade to see my own software accepted in > debian. I would treat "my" debian maintainer and her/his resources with > respect and write the documentation by myself. ;) > > > > > It should be up to the Debian staff to do the > > > > documentation for upstream! > > > > Did you forget a "not" here? > > Yes, of course. ;) > > > One of the reasons I didn't reply earlier is the tone of your > > message. You write "Debian should do this and that", > > This is about my English. ;) > IMO Debian is big and important enough that it could have an attitude > like: "We only accept your package if you document it." > It means Debian could set a quality standard for packages. So your point is that upstream could do better? But then why are you telling this on a Debian list? I guess you should tell upstream, right? You could e.g. report bugs in upstream bugtrackers and point to the Debian manpage? Bye, Joost
