On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:18:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jun 12, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say the target should be > > "patched", rather than "source". For reference, the proposal as it now > > reads follows; as always, I'm looking for seconds. > I object. If the standard "patched" target exists then README.source > should not be needed.
I object to that objection: 1) 'patched' is not a sufficient interface to deal with a package. It only allow to look at a package in it final form, not to modify it. Ad minimum, you need a way to add new patches. you still need README.source to document that. 2) Packages that does not provide a README.source should be assumed to not require special handling. Cheers, Bill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
