On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > There is a namespace issue here, that falls in scope for Policy because it > > impacts interoperability; if there are going to be limits placed on the > > names of packages in the main archive, that almost certainly *does* belong > > in Policy. And the Policy editors should not be dictating a dpkg > > implementation for ddebs as a precondition, not when that dpkg > > implementation isn't required and doesn't appear to have any backing from > > the dpkg maintainers.
> The policy editors may ask for the design to be implemented and > tested, and (gasp) even critique the design, Yes, and I may critique the quality of your critique. This doesn't belong in dpkg. > before having it added to policy. Policy is not the place to shoce in > untested/raw design. It's not particularly untested, it's essentially equivalent to what's been deployed in Ubuntu for several years now. > And in this case, there seems to be an issue of occams razor: > why should a new file suffix be created when policy based naming wold > not require it in the first place It shouldn't. Why are you fixating on this when I've already noted that it's a red herring? So we fix that. That doesn't require making any changes to dpkg. > So, please keep heckling from the peanut gallery to a minimum, > please, and assume that policy editors have a modicum of sense when > dealing with their role duties. If you were showing a modicum of sense, there would be no need to assume. For example, not referring to a fellow member of the Technical Committee, the constitutional authority on Debian technical policy, as "the peanut gallery". > >> I do have a question: Why is the fact that these are > >> automatically created relevant? > > Because if they're *not* automatically created, there's no namespace > > issue: package name conflicts would continue to be resolved the usual > > way, via ftpmasters and the NEW queue. > Seems like if policy carves out a namespace for debug packages, > it would serve for both automatically generated and hand crafted debug > packages; and it is trivial for the automatic generation not to happen > when there is an entry in debian/control for a debug package already, > as long as there is a naming convention for debug packages. That's fair, but it doesn't guard against package name collisions with packages built from a *different* source package; so if manually-built packages are allowed to use the same namespace, there ought to be a policy in place that prevents them from being provided in a way that confuses the automated build process. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
