On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:56:41AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Seconded. I suggest we move forward with this and that I apply it to master
next week, if Russ is still OK with this.
Done. This is the summary:
* Policy: [12.3] recommend to ship additional documentation for package 'pkg'
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 08:51:58AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
As always, once I start seriously poking at an area of Policy, I see
other little things that need to be fixed as well. Here is a general
overhaul of the additional documentation section,
Le Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 08:51:58AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
As always, once I start seriously poking at an area of Policy, I see
other little things that need to be fixed as well. Here is a general
overhaul of the additional documentation
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
As always, once I start seriously poking at an area of Policy, I see
other little things that need to be fixed as well. Here is a general
overhaul of the additional documentation section, which should both
address this bug as well as a few other things.
As always, once I start seriously poking at an area of Policy, I see other
little things that need to be fixed as well. Here is a general overhaul
of the additional documentation section, which should both address this
bug as well as a few other things.
The changes here are:
* Shared library
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
* Some reorganization and wording tweaks to hopefully make things clearer.
Alas, there's a lot of this --- enough that I wish this had been
prepared as a multiple-patch series, with for example whitespace-only
changes split out.
Oh, well. Onward. :)
[...]
---
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
p
- It is often a good idea to put text information files
- (fileREADME/files, changelogs, and so forth) that come with
- the source package in file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/file
- in the
Le Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:13:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Discussion, objections, seconds?
Dear Russ,
overall, I am very positive with your changes, but here are two comments that I
hope can improve the section.
+ p
+ Any separate package providing documentation must still
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
There have been recurrent discussions about
/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var-doc being a symbolic link to
/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var. In my understanding, this is
discouraged now. Perhaps this desserves a footnote ?
I tried to avoid changing
I'm not sure where in the thread we lost this, but please copy the
relevant bug on Policy discussions so that we have an archived record of
the discussion without having to search out the appropriate time-based
portion of the debian-policy archive. I also make extensive use of
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Thank you for writing this up!
It's my pleasure.
I'm inclined to second this, although I wonder if should is too strong
at this point and we should instead allow for either method but
document that using the same directory as the parent package is
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 10:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
My personal preference would be to encourage -doc packages to install
their files into /usr/share/doc/package/docs - including their
internal administrivia.
That would break Lintian,
package debian-policy
retitle 106073 recommend to install additional documentation into
/usr/share/doc/package/
tags 106073 + patch
thanks
On 27-Sep-2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
Some proposed mandating that -doc package contents is placed into
/usr/share/doc/package/, and that the administrivia
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy'
retitle 106073 recommend to install additional documentation into
/usr/share/doc/package/
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 14:55 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
On 27-Sep-2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
Some proposed mandating that -doc package contents is placed into
/usr/share/doc/package/, and that the administrivia such as
copyright and changelog stays in /usr/share/doc/package-doc/. This
sounds
At (time_t)1027974412 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
For each virtual package we should document
* a description of what it should be used for
* a complete description of the interface packages should provide if
that is relevant for that virtual package
Another potential documentation point
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben If the maintainer can't add The docs reference paths that do
Ben not exist on a Debian system to README.Debian, then I would
Ben think something is severely wrong with how the package is
Ben maintained.
I would suggest that it
* Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010305 22:20]:
I would suggest that it would be better use of the maintainers time
fixing problems.
It shouldn't be that tough; note whatever the --prefix etc options are
to the configure script if it has one, and make a note of this in
README.Debian. For those
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:07:20AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:01:23AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
IMO, it should say packages SHOULD change the docs to match the package
setup, and there MUST be a
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
I think the basic problem here is that the policy manual is using
MUST and SHOULD (actually _must_ and _should_) in a different sense
than anywhere else.
Actually it's just the words `must' and `should', capitalisation and
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
I think the basic problem here is that the policy manual is using
MUST and SHOULD (actually _must_ and _should_) in a different sense
than anywhere else. This is hard to adjust to for someone used to
reading RFCs.
The usage
Henrique == Henrique M Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that all documentation must reflect the Debian
locations of configuration and other files, and that manpages
and the like should be altered as necessary to achieve this.
=20 Comments?
Henrique I've seen
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 08:07:56AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
As such, I would not like to see a MUST added to policy for updating upstream
docs.
I think it should atleast say Some of the locations and features depend
on how the program was compiled and installed. This is what it says in
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:01:23AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
IMO, it should say packages SHOULD change the docs to match the package
setup, and there MUST be a disclaimer when docs do not match the
package, and the disclaimer
Oliver == Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
Oliver I think that all documentation must reflect the Debian
Oliver locations of configuration and other files, and that manpages
Oliver and the like should be altered as necessary to achieve this.
Oliver Comments?
Indeed, incorrect
I should like to suggest an alteration to policy in respect of package
documentation.
Configuration file locations are oftenn changed for Debian. However the
manual pages still refer to the upstream locations. This makes it very
difficult to find out where to make changes, particularly for new
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 12:55:01PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Configuration file locations are oftenn changed for Debian. However the
manual pages still refer to the upstream locations. This makes it very
difficult to find out where to make changes, particularly for new users.
Uh, so
Previously Oliver Elphick wrote:
I think that all documentation must reflect the Debian locations of
configuration and other files, and that manpages and the like should be
altered as necessary to achieve this.
I would consider this a normal task for a maintainer and is too obvious
to be in
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Configuration file locations are oftenn changed for Debian. However the
manual pages still refer to the upstream locations. This makes it very
difficult to find out where to make changes, particularly for new users.
AFAIK what you describe is a bug.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Oliver Elphick wrote:
I think that all documentation must reflect the Debian locations of
configuration and other files, and that manpages and the like should be
altered as necessary to achieve this.
I would consider this a normal task for a
Anthony Towns wrote:
--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 12:55:01PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Configuration file locations are oftenn changed for Debian.
Previously Oliver Elphick wrote:
I have in the past seen people argue that the upstream stuff should
be left alone.
Many things are argued, but not all are correct. If you follow that
reasoning we would all be DJB-clones..
Wichert.
--
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:43:21AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
I wonder if anyone ever refused doing such a change?
That would be a reason *not* to put it in policy, at least until we
consider the reasons for such a refusal. Policy is supposed to
encode the things we do agree on.
I
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:43:21AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
I have doubts we need to add such to policy... Maybe mentioning make sure
you update the location of files in the documentation you are packaging in
the packaging-guide (if
That would be a reason *not* to put it in policy, at least until we
consider the reasons for such a refusal. Policy is supposed to
encode the things we do agree on.
That's not true, and it never was. Policy changes often leaves existing
packages in non-compliance. And that's good.
As I see
On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 07:05:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I propose the following extra requirement for non-free and contrib
packages:
A package which is non-free must contain a file
/usr/doc/package/README.non-free (or one of its dependencies must
contain a relevant such file).
[I wonder at which stage this proposal is at the moment]
On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 07:05:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I propose the following extra requirement for non-free and contrib
packages:
A package which is non-free must contain a file
/usr/doc/package/README.non-free (or one of its
Hi,
Alex == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree. A package's placement in non-free should be a last
resort. Making sorting out the copyright a requirement for
inclusion in non-free will encourage efforts to fix the problem.
Alex ... and be the way to ban the packages from being included
Branden Robinson writes (Re: Non-free package documentation requirement):
Uh, can we have some exception classes to this?
For instance, xtrs is in contrib because it requires the ROM images from
some very old, long dead computers. Those images were copyrighted by
Tandy/Radio Shack
[Ian:]
A package which is non-free must contain a file
/usr/doc/package/README.non-free (or one of its dependencies must
contain a relevant such file). This file must contain either:
1. A copy of an electronic mail message received by the package
maintainer from the copyright
Count me 100% in favor. One question -- what about giflib where the
copyright is obvious and will not change. Can this be noted rather than
wasting our time e-mailing them?
--
---
How can you see, when your mind is not open?
How can you think, when
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Shaleh wrote:
Count me 100% in favor. One question -- what about giflib where the
copyright is obvious and will not change. Can this be noted rather than
wasting our time e-mailing them?
I expect we can/should probably draft a standard disclaimer similar to:
--- snip
42 matches
Mail list logo
