Re: wishing minimal doc criteria for debian packages
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:31:18PM +0200, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
>
> I am sorry for the "tone". It wasn't against "Debian". It is only
> because of Upstream. And I think this is a problem with my
> none-native-english, too.
OK, I see.
> > please do submit a bug for that package.
>
> I did for all the points.
A, indeed,
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?dist=unstable;submitter=c.buhtz%40posteo.jp
shows quite a lot of them. Sorry for not checking earlier.
> > > > A nice to have (for me a must have) would be that upstream have to
> > > > provide a manpage.
> >
> > Yup, we agree. "Each program, utility, and function should have an
> > associated manual page included in the same package."
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1 . If a
> > manpage is lacking, please report that as a bug.
>
> This doesn't point out who should provide the documentation. And that
> is the point I want to bring up here. But of course I know this won't
> change in the near feature. I just want to discuss about it and learn
> from the Debian-oids. :)
>
> e.g. The manpage of "libnotify" was written by debian-people. It is
> debian-specific. In the upstream (gnome) source there is no manpage.
> In my opinion, some people didn't checked very well while the
> contribution process:
> 1. Someone contributed libnotify code to gnome. Someone accepted that
> code but didn't take care about that there was no documentation.
> 2. Someone accepted libnotify as a debian package. She/he found out
> that there is no manpage, wrote one and did work upstream should
> have made.
>
> to 1. I would never accept code without documentation in a project.
> Here I don't have to explain how much workload undocumented code
> produce while the lifetime of a software project. This is not about
> saying "No" to the contributing person. It is about taking she/him by
> her/his hand and explain and show how to provide well documented code.
>
> to 2. It shouldn't not be up to debian to make the "dirty" work for
> other projects. I am not sure how other devs think about that but for
> me it would be kind of an accolade to see my own software accepted in
> debian. I would treat "my" debian maintainer and her/his resources with
> respect and write the documentation by myself. ;)
>
> > > > It should be up to the Debian staff to do the
> > > > documentation for upstream!
> >
> > Did you forget a "not" here?
>
> Yes, of course. ;)
>
> > One of the reasons I didn't reply earlier is the tone of your
> > message. You write "Debian should do this and that",
>
> This is about my English. ;)
> IMO Debian is big and important enough that it could have an attitude
> like: "We only accept your package if you document it."
> It means Debian could set a quality standard for packages.
So your point is that upstream could do better? But then why are you telling
this on a Debian list? I guess you should tell upstream, right?
You could e.g. report bugs in upstream bugtrackers and point to the Debian
manpage?
Bye,
Joost
Reply to: