Am Donnerstag, den 13.11.2008, 13:37 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: > Hi all, > > I added the following paragraph to our Policy. > (I suppose it is consensual)
I'm not part of debian-med. However, I hope you don't mind this mail: [..] > + <sect2> > + <title><filename>debian/README.source</filename></title> > + <para>This file is recommended by the Policy (<ulink > url="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource";>ยง > 4.14</ulink>) from version 3.8.0 for documenting source package handling. You > can start from the following template, and add other necessary informations > about patch systems and sources in other format than gzipped tar achive: > + <literallayout> > +This package is maintained by the Debian Med packaging team. Please refer to > +our group policy if you would like to commit to our Subversion repository. > All > +Debian developpers have write acces to it. > + </literallayout> > + </para> > + </sect2> IMHO this is a misuse of this file. The contents of README.source should point to unusual/uncommon source handling, including source parts, which have been removed, repackaged or put together, patch management systems and maybe information related to multiple/special builds. But your template does not fit any of these categories. Instead it doubles the information from the already existing Vcs* control fields and debian/copyright. So I think, that the last paragraph of section 4.14 of the policy doesn't apply here (IMHO *buildpackage tools are not the target of this sentence, as they are not necessary to modify the source). As long as this package is maintained by a group of people, they can agree to some policy internally. But such a group policy nor the VCS usage do not apply to NMUs nor new maintainers (if this package gets orphaned). So I think, putting this information into README.source is wrong. However, this is my very personal opinion. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
