[Debian-olpc-devel] "readme.source and readme.cdbs" (was Re: Bug#485233: Path still broken in 23-2

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Jonas,

On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I did mean 1st, but I agree with you that 2nd is better (and reading
> Debian Policy section 4.14 clearly states that all documentation needs
> to be available offline, contrary to my earlier understanding of that).

:-)

> Still, I find it cumbersome (until a later switch to topgit which
> actually supports this!) to maintain virtually identical instructions
> across all Sugar packages.

But don't you do the same with cdbs tweaks? (Which probably is sometimes 
cumbersome.. ;)

> So I propose the following slight revision: 
>
> 1) Duplicate contents of README.Packaging on some wiki page
> 2) Update wiki page with above hint
> 3) Copy README.source from wiki page
> 4) Drop README.Packaging
> 5) Extend debian/rules to always copy README.source from wiki page
> during clean when DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE is set.

Sounds great!

> In other words: Please go ahead setting up that wiki page and improving
> it from info gathered in these emails: It _is_ a great help!

Will do.

> >I dont think we should try to be smarter than upstream. In general I
> >trust their ability to judge whether versions work together well,
> >better than us.
>
> I suspect that you do not understand the issue at hand.

You're right :-D

> Upstream generally claim newer releases of activities to work fine on
> older releases of Sugar.

Ah

> >The sugarlabs wiki page for the 0.82 release said calculate was at
> >0.23.
> The Sugarlabs wiki or the OLPC wiki?

sugarlabs.


regards,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/attachments/20090201/c30bd491/attachment.pgp