Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Martin> I don't call changing filenames in original documentation > > Martin> easily maintainable.
> > I find this hardly onerous at all. I have a rules file. It was > > set up when I first set up the package. This aspect has never needed > > to be changes. Why is it not easily maintainable? Why should anyone > > tell me, at this level of detail, how to set up my packages? > This has practically nothing to do with debian/rules. It is about > renaming upstream changelogs, and having to possibly edit other files > in /usr/doc/<package> to reference that new upstream changelog name. > What I am suggesting is that a symlink is a better way of doing this than > a search and replace of filenames in other docs. I know this isn't a democracy, but I'd like to voice my agreement with Manoj's position vis-a-vis your, Martin. The decision whether to rename or symlink an upstream changelog file should be the decisions of the package maintainer. Either way, some entity called /usr/doc/<pkg>/changelog.gz must be provided (file, symlink, or hard link). Period. > > I just ask you do not put us into a rigid policy position > > unless the benefits are better defined, and until we are more certain > > of the feasibility of a rigid policy. > > It isn't a rigid policy position. I'd call it a strong recommendation, that > I'd expect to work for >98% of packages. I don't think it deserves even that. I personally have no problem renaming upstream files when the way they are named is inconsistent and icky. Cf the sgml-data package. Sometimes, i.e., with the DTDs from the 'sdc' package, I had to rename the files to prevent namespace collisions. File renaming is up to the package maintainer. Give us our freedom to make out operating environment better than anyone's! .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
