Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I believe the devref instructions are wrong. The proper location for
>>> this information is debian/copyright, which is already required to
>>> contain information a
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:21:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Explaining where and how the .orig.tar.gz file was generated to me
>> falls into the category of saying where the upstream source was
>> obtained.
> It does not.
Yes, actually, it does.
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:21:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I believe the devref instructions are wrong. The proper location for
> >> this information is debian/copyright, which is already required to
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe the devref instructions are wrong. The proper location for
>> this information is debian/copyright, which is already required to
>> contain information about the provenance of the upstream source.
I t
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The developer's reference describes in
>>
>> 6.7.8 Best practices for orig.tar.gz files
>>
>> how to document properly any changes that need to be done to the
>> orig.tar.gz, and recommends the name README.Deb
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest to end this paragraph with
>
> + system (for example, a package that builds the same source
> + multiple times to generate different binary packages, or a
> + package which had to change the upstream tarball due to
> + te
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +
> + debian/README.source may also include any other
> + information that would be helpful to someone modifying the
> + source package. Even if the package doesn't fit the above
> + description, maintainers are encouraged to
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Okay, here is a new and hopefully final version of the README.source
>> patch. If you have any other comments or concerns, please speak up
>> now; otherwise, I will apply this patch for the next Policy relea
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, here is a new and hopefully final version of the README.source
> patch. If you have any other comments or concerns, please speak up now;
> otherwise, I will apply this patch for the next Policy release.
Seconded.
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-selle
Okay, here is a new and hopefully final version of the README.source
patch. If you have any other comments or concerns, please speak up now;
otherwise, I will apply this patch for the next Policy release.
--- orig/policy.sgml
+++ mod/policy.sgml
@@ -1926,6 +1926,19 @@
possible is
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:36:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jörg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The rest looks good and I agree that such a source is useful, but it
> > should also be allowed to refer to a central document like
> > /u/s/d/dpatch/README.source. I expect that many README.
Jörg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery schrieb am Tue 01. Jan, 22:54 (-0800):
>> + debian/README.source documentation file is
>> + recommended. This file should explain how to do all of the
>> + following:
>> +
>> + Generate the fully patched source
Hi,
Russ Allbery schrieb am Tue 01. Jan, 22:54 (-0800):
> + debian/README.source documentation file is
> + recommended. This file should explain how to do all of the
> + following:
> +
> + Generate the fully patched source, in a form ready for
> + ed
Hi,
> > (If patched is in use by one of the major patch systems today and I just
> > forgot about it, please let me know.)
>
> Part of the original thread was picking something that currently wasn't
> used so that we could be assured that we weren't changing the semantics of
> something already o
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Russ,
>
> First, thanks for your great work on this bug.
Thanks! It feels good to go back and resolve long-standing issues.
>> + dpkg-buildpackage ---^
> Seems you've missed a > there.
Thanks, fixed in my
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Accordingly, I think moving forward with specifying a README.source
>> file that explains the above three or four points is something we can
>> reach consensus on. I'm not as sure about sta
Hi Russ,
First, thanks for your great work on this bug.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is the last Policy bug I had tagged as wording. It started with a
> proposal for a README.source file documenting how to do things with a
> package that uses a non-trivial
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Accordingly, I think moving forward with specifying a README.source file
> that explains the above three or four points is something we can reach
> consensus on. I'm not as sure about standardizing a target for 1 (setup,
> unpack, and
This is the last Policy bug I had tagged as wording. It started with a
proposal for a README.source file documenting how to do things with a
package that uses a non-trivial source format, and then expanded into
standardizing debian/rules targets for doing various things.
Having reviewed the entir
19 matches
Mail list logo
