On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:02:37 +0200, Henning Makholm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/usr/share/doc/aptitude/README is upstream's entire user manual in
text format. It contains a short section on how to get aptitude if
one does not have a .deb available. I think this is fair, but it is of
course correct
Scripsit Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/usr/share/doc/aptitude/README is upstream's entire user manual in
text format. It contains a short section on how to get aptitude if
one does not have a .deb available. I think this is fair, but it is of
course
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:18:39AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
...a lot of wise things...
I have to agree. So how to proceed? File minor bugs against
README files, that contain predominantly useless information?
Cheers,
--
W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps the upstream README should be renamed 'README.upstream'?
Why? We currently do not denote every file shippped by upstream with a
.upstream suffix but instead earmark added, Debian-specific items
using the same base name with a .Debian suffix.
This
On Mon, August 15, 2005 01:42, Ben Armstrong wrote:
Why not just help improve upstream's README when you encounter poor
quality work? That's what you'd do with code, wouldn't you?
Requirements on upstream README and information that's useful within
Debian differ. It often contains information
Scripsit W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:18:39AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
...a lot of wise things...
I have to agree. So how to proceed? File minor bugs against
README files, that contain predominantly useless information?
What other way would there be to
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
It is not said that upstream README's are useless per se; I think
W.Borgert's point is the following: judge each upstream README on its own
merits. I agree that currently many people will automatically install this
README in the /u/s/doc dir,
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 01:25:37PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Perhaps the upstream README should be renamed 'README.upstream'?
Given the context, it would probably make more sense to rename it to IGNOREME.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Idea 1:
lintian: W: /usr/share/doc/README contains installation instructions
I like that one.
Cheers,
--
Wolfgang Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:53:37AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Go ahead and file bugs. With patches. And perhaps an explanation
of why a README in the .deb is not required and, if it exists, is not
required to equal upstream's.
When a few dozen of your patches have made it to sid, condense
Scripsit W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Idea 1:
lintian: W: /usr/share/doc/README contains installation instructions
I like that one.
Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
lines that start
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:42:27PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
lines that start with whitespace plus ./configure , but how reliable
is that?
Attached test found some culprits: aptitude autofs dbus-1
dbus-glib-1 deborphan
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 10:08 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Mon, August 15, 2005 01:42, Ben Armstrong wrote:
Why not just help improve upstream's README when you encounter poor
quality work? That's what you'd do with code, wouldn't you?
Requirements on upstream README and information
W. Borgert wrote:
- Readme file for package.
Really?
Can be useful on printouts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:42:27PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
lines that start with whitespace plus ./configure , but how reliable
is that?
Attached test found some culprits:
It
Scripsit Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 10:08 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
Requirements on upstream README and information that's useful within
Debian differ. It often contains information about building, installation
or bug reporting which is not relevant to Debian.
Scripsit Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that currently many people will automatically install this
README in the /u/s/doc dir, regardless of its contents, while it
would make more sense to make a judgement whether including it
actually adds value.
I notice that dh-make will
Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Requirements on upstream README and information that's useful within
Debian differ. It often contains information about building,
installation or bug reporting which is not relevant to Debian.
I don't understand why people keep saying that upstream
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 16:31 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
I don't think there is a way to get around this difference. There is a
fairly widespread convention of putting compilation instructions in an
INSTALL file, but there is no similarly widespread convention for
putting information about,
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 08:54 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't understand why people keep saying that upstream bug reporting
instructions are irrelevant to Debian. Surely I'm not the only person who
wants to be able to discuss some issues directly with upstream when
they're not in the
Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While exceptions certainly exist, most of the time, a user reporting a
bug on a Debian package directly upstream is not appropriate. It is
better for the user to first seek help from their distribution. Then,
if it is clear that the issue is
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:55:11PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
whether to compress the README and similar files, I always end up
typing less /usr/share/doc/blah/README.Debian[.gz] using tab
completion and have to go back and correcting my command
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Idea 1:
lintian: W: /usr/share/doc/README contains installation instructions
I like that one.
Yes - but how should Lintian detect it? Of course one could look for
lines that start with whitespace plus ./configure , but how reliable
is that?
I demand that Henning Makholm may or may not have written...
[snip]
There is a fairly widespread convention of putting compilation instructions
in an INSTALL file, but there is no similarly widespread convention for
putting information about, say, you'll need these libraries,
ISTM that
Hi,
I have to start yet another discussion about our packaging
practise. Did anyone ever take a look at our
/usr/share/doc/package/README{,.gz} files? If the users have
difficulties with a package, we often reply Why didn't you read
the README? It's called README for a reason! However, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W. Borgert wrote:
Hi,
I have to start yet another discussion about our packaging
practise. Did anyone ever take a look at our
/usr/share/doc/package/README{,.gz} files? If the users have
difficulties with a package, we often reply Why didn't
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:55:11PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
While I agree the README can be confusing, I think we do a disservice
to our upstream by not including it. Some readers may be interested in
the people who brought them the software, or knowing upstream's email
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:02:36PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
- Readme file for package.
Really?
Well, you want to know which package a README belongs to when you get a README
without any other information... right?
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:02:36PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
- Readme file for package.
Really?
Well, you want to know which package a README belongs to when you get a README
without any other information... right?
Nice, if
Perhaps the upstream README should be renamed 'README.upstream'?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think a better solution would be to duplicate all the important
information about the software into the README.Debian and train users
to read that soley.
If I was king of the world (or at least of Debian), I would go the
more radical route of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
their files. Or do you suggest to tag all files in Debian with
such an information? :-)
Open a man page.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
their files. Or do you suggest to tag all files in Debian with
such an information? :-)
Open a man page.
Because it has a NAME section? OK, you won :-)
Cheers,
--
W. Borgert [EMAIL
On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 12:55 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
While I agree the README can be confusing, I think we do a disservice
to our upstream by not including it.
That's my gut feeling too.
I think a better solution would be to duplicate all the important
information about the software
Scripsit Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 12:55 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
While I agree the README can be confusing, I think we do a disservice
to our upstream by not including it.
That's my gut feeling too.
I don't think we should base gut feelings solely based
35 matches
Mail list logo
