Bug#489135: debian-policy: how to document a repackaged .orig.tar.gz

[Bart Martens-3]

Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

Not so long ago the Developer's Reference explained how a repackaged
upstream tarball must be documented in debian/README.Debian-source.  Now
the Developer's Reference states that this must be documented in
debian/copyright.

developers-reference 3.4.0 :
file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz

        "must contain detailed information how the repackaged source was
        obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
        debian/copyright."

Please consider moving this information to debian-policy.





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

Bart Martens <bartm@...> writes:

> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Not so long ago the Developer's Reference explained how a repackaged
> upstream tarball must be documented in debian/README.Debian-source.  Now
> the Developer's Reference states that this must be documented in
> debian/copyright.
>
> developers-reference 3.4.0 :
> file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz
>
>         "must contain detailed information how the repackaged source was
>         obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
>         debian/copyright."
>
> Please consider moving this information to debian-policy.

Could you explain more of why you feel that Policy is the right place for
this recommendation?

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Bart Martens-3]

On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 10:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Bart Martens <bartm@...> writes:
>
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Not so long ago the Developer's Reference explained how a repackaged
> > upstream tarball must be documented in debian/README.Debian-source.  Now
> > the Developer's Reference states that this must be documented in
> > debian/copyright.
> >
> > developers-reference 3.4.0 :
> > file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz
> >
> >         "must contain detailed information how the repackaged source was
> >         obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
> >         debian/copyright."
> >
> > Please consider moving this information to debian-policy.
>
> Could you explain more of why you feel that Policy is the right place for
> this recommendation?
>

Because it is typically a "must"-rule as meant in debian-policy.

debian-policy 3.8.0.1 :
file:///usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch-scope.html#s1.1

        "In the normative part of this manual, the words must, should
        and may, and the adjectives required, recommended and optional,
        are used to distinguish the significance of the various
        guidelines in this policy document."

Also, developers-reference points to debian-policy for standards to
which Debian software must comply.

developers-reference 3.4.0 :
file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/scope.html

        "Nor does this reference detail the standards to which Debian
        software must comply. All of such information can be found in
        the Debian Policy Manual."

When I compare debian-policy and developers-reference then I honestly
think that the part about how a repackaged upstream tarball must be
documented belongs in debian-policy.

Does this answer your question ?

Regards,

Bart Martens





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

Bart Martens <bartm@...> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 10:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Bart Martens <bartm@...> writes:

>>> Not so long ago the Developer's Reference explained how a repackaged
>>> upstream tarball must be documented in debian/README.Debian-source.  Now
>>> the Developer's Reference states that this must be documented in
>>> debian/copyright.

>>> developers-reference 3.4.0 :
>>> file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz

>>>         "must contain detailed information how the repackaged source was
>>>         obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
>>>         debian/copyright."

>>> Please consider moving this information to debian-policy.

>> Could you explain more of why you feel that Policy is the right place
>> for this recommendation?

> Because it is typically a "must"-rule as meant in debian-policy.

This is not currently a must.  Currently, people are not required to do
this at all.  I guess what I'm looking for is a rationale for why this
should be an RC bug, as opposed to just a best-practice recommendation.
Or maybe it should be in Policy as a "should"?

> Also, developers-reference points to debian-policy for standards to
> which Debian software must comply.
>
> developers-reference 3.4.0 :
> file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/scope.html

This is currently not a standard with which people must comply.  That's
what you're proposing changing by moving it into Policy.  I want to
understand what problems it would solve to require this.  It may very well
be something we should do, but we should understand what the rationale is.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Bart Martens-3]

reassign 489135 developers-reference
severity 489135 normal
retitle 489135 developers-reference: uses debian-policy style wording
stop


In my opinion developers-reference should not use must/should/may
wording, because this makes readers confuse developers-reference with
debian-policy.

For example, in developers-reference 3.4.0 :
file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz

        "must contain detailed information how the repackaged source was
        obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
        debian/copyright."

The word "must" gives the impression that it's a standard to which
Debian software must comply.

Please consider rephrasing the must/should/may parts in
developers-reference to convert these parts to just best-practice
recommendations.  Or, please consider moving those parts to
debian-policy.






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for control@...:

> reassign 489135 developers-reference
Bug#489135: debian-policy: how to document a repackaged .orig.tar.gz
Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `developers-reference'.

> severity 489135 normal
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.

> retitle 489135 developers-reference: uses debian-policy style wording
Bug#489135: debian-policy: how to document a repackaged .orig.tar.gz
Changed Bug title to `developers-reference: uses debian-policy style wording' from `debian-policy: how to document a repackaged .orig.tar.gz'.

> stop
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...