On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The current Policy manual says almost nothing about the README.Debian file. I 
> suggest to add a section 6.8 (in the "Documentation" chapter) or something 
> like that:
> 
> 6.8 README.Debian

Something to this effect should definitely be added. It might even be worth
mentioning that a "TODO.Debian" can be helpful too. So on the presumption
I can second this with a mild difference of opinion, I'd like to do that.

> Your package may contain a /usr/share/doc/package/README.Debian file. It is 
> mandatory to have one if you modified the source code of the upstream package.

I'd prefer to just say it should document these changes, rather than make
it mandatory. :-/

> - the rationale for choosing such or such options in the debian/rules when 
> calling configure and/or make.

Why shouldn't this simply be in the debian/rules file where it's convenient,
both to change when you change the configure and/or make options, and to
read when you notice someone's setting weird options in the rules file?

> - the Debian packages you need to recompile this package. The Debian 
> packaging 
> system does not know about formal source dependencies. Therefore, if the 
> source of a package does not compile, the user has to guess what you need. It 
> is better to tell it explicitely.

There's an existing proposal to have proper build dependencies, so this
is hopefully redundant.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgp9FHW7jebIq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to