[Debian-on-mobile-maintainers] Bug#1050762: two more minor fixes in your upstream fixes

[Boud Roukema]

hi Guido,

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023, Guido Günther wrote:

> (put the bug in cc: so we have a all the bits together)

OK.

> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:09:02PM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote:
>> hi Guido,
>>
>> I agree with closing #1050762. But upstream I still see two minor fixes
>> needed (unless I misunderstand something):
>>
>> https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/feedbackd/-/blob/main/doc/fbd-theme-validate.rst
>> - 'See also' is missing  fbd-theme-validate(1)
>
> I assume you mean `missing `feedback-themes`, I've added that.

Yes, of course. There's no point having a recursive reference (except as a joke
in a reursion-related package).

>> The other bug, #1050601, still looks open to me. At least the upstream main
>
> That's why I didn't close it yet.

OK. :)

> The README isn't suitable to install
> though as half of the information isn't relevant on the installed
> system.

I'm not sure if there's a general Debian policy on this, but plenty of
packages have the upstream README in /usr/share/doc/<packagename>/ even though
most of the info is about how to install the package rather than what to do
with an already installed packge. I initially found this a bit confusing,
but I got used to it.

I assume that seeing the upstream README, even the INSTALL file, in
/usr/share/doc/<packagename>/ can encourage people to get the Debian
version of the source package, and then later, if they wish, the
upstream version.  After all, making the source available is a
condition of the GPL, and making it easy for people to make that
decision is in the spirit of the GPL. README files are small text
files, so file size is not an argument to avoid them.

> The corresponding bits need to move to the manpages (which is
> also an opportunity to disentangle those).

OK.

Cheers
Boud