On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> This package violates policy in several ways:
> - first of all, the busybox binary package does not include
> a copyright file, a changelog file or - indeed - a
> /usr/[share/]doc/ directory!
>
> - second of all,
> E: busybox: symlink-should-be-relative bin/head /bin/busybox
> [...]
>
> - third of all, I am not sure if it is a good idea to
> include a package in the distribution that cannot be
> installed into a system without breaking that system
> (this package conflicts with many essential packages)
> You should definitely bring this issue up on -devel or
> -policy before reuploading (btw, I cannot find an ITP
> for this package...)
>
> If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
> override file requires editing, reply to this email.
>
> Your rejected files are in incoming/REJECT/. (Some may also be in
> incoming/ if your .changes file was unparsable.) If only some of the
> files need to repaired, you may move any good files back to incoming/.
> Please remove any bad files from incoming/REJECT/.
This package is _supposed_ to violate policy. It is to be used exclusivly by
the debian-installer. There is no way you could ever even install it onto your
workstation, since it conflicts with dpkg.
The Debian installer does not need or want a /usr/[share/]doc directory or man
pages or copyrights or changelogs. It just needs the certain files which are
used to install Debian. Now, I could go through and include all those files
(in fact my first pass at packaging BusyBox had all that), but in discussion on
the boot-floppies mailing list it was agreed that this is not needed or wanted
(see the thread "Re: woody installation system"
Joey Hess, leader of the woody boot floppies project recently responsed as
follows when I brought up this very concern:
Subject: Re: woody installation system
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:26:51 -0700
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Andersen wrote:
> I have .deb'ed busybox, but before I upload anything I was wondering... Lintian
> complains about missing man pages on all the apps. How important is it that I
> comply with policy for something like BusyBox? I can add in full docs, full
> manpages, do a full set of conflicts/replaces so that someone can do an 'apt
> get install busybox' and actually have it work, but I suspect that few people
> would want to do that to their workstation... :) I was thinking that just the
> apps, no docs, no manpages, and just a set of conflicts would be sufficient...
> Thoughts?
If the package is intended to be used for just the woody debian-installer,
manpages and so on seem like bloat and a bad idea.
However, we might want to come up with a new section of the archive to
put such packages, since they arn't really full quality .deb's. I think
woody/main/install-i386/modules/ makes sense, or something like that.
woody/main/binary-i386/installer/ may be easier to set up, but is a bit
less clean.
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again, this is _only_ for the debian-installer.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen Web: http://www.xmission.com/~andersen/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
