On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 07:24:27PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sun 23 Aug 2015 at 05:50:46 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 02:24:07PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > Quoting Chris Bannister (cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz): > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:34:23AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > > > > To be fair, there are some Debian.readme which make no sense to an end > > > > user. I've seen some Debian.readme files which talk about about how to > > > > compile the program. Hello? Isn't Debian a "binary" distribution. > > > > > > I don't think I can let this stand. Are you confusing README.Debian > > > files with the README files that may or may not come from upstream? > > > > Of course not. > > You are not. README files have to come from upstream, otherwise they > would be called "README.Debian". > > Many READMEs are of excellent quality for the purpose they are intended > for.
I would say that the majority of READMEs are of good quality. My OP was just pointing out that *sometimes* they're not, hence my starting with the phrase "To be fair, ..." on the original poster after seeing the "ribbing" he/she got. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
