Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> I have reservations about this proposal on two grounds.
Too late. The packaging manual is already policy. We already
have been thorugh this. The only forum that can decide what
constitutes Debian policy is the Technical committee, and the policy
mailing list. The policy mailing list came to the conclusion in
september that the Packaging manual was part of core policy, and the
developers reference was not.
This mailing list agreed that the packagingn manual
has the weight of policy, and that was announced on debian-devel as
well, and accepted by a vote in this forum. I am willing to quote
Chapter and verse:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00072.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00074.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00076.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00077.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00083.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00084.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00086.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00088.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00089.html
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00090.html
Joey> 1) The packaging manual was not written as a policy document, it is
Joey> technical documentation. I advise everyone to read all of
Joey> the packaging manual as if it were a policy document to make
Joey> sure there's nothing in there that won't come back to haunt
Joey> us later once it becomes policy.
As it is already policy, I would like to screen out all the
things that should be thrown right back out.
Joey> Some examples of things that bother me:
Joey> The Debian `debmake' package is recommended as a very helpful tool
in
Joey> creating and maintaining Debian packages.
Joey> Does this mean that policy would encourage use of debstd? (Not
Joey> that it's in debmake anymore, but it was when the above was
Joey> written.) I thought Manoj didn't even like debmake as it is
Joey> now, so I'm suprised to see him propose that policy reccommend
Joey> its use.
I think the packaging manual can do with some major changes ;-)
Joey> For example, the `procps' package generates two kinds of binaries,
Joey> simple C binaries like `ps' which require a predependency and
Joey> full-screen ncurses binaries like top' which require only a
Joey> recommendation.
Joey> If this became policy, it would mean that procps explicitly
Joey> violates policy with "Depends: libc6, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u),
Joey> libncurses4".
This should be removed, then.
Joey> It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f', so that it can be
Joey> invoked by saying its name rather than invoking make' explicitly.
Joey> While this (as I read it) intends to require that you can say
Joey> "debian/rules binary", rather than "make -f debian/rules
Joey> binary", people are already misinterpreting it to mean that the
Joey> rules file must be a makefile. I do not want such a vaguely
Joey> worded, easily misinterpreted statement to become part of
Joey> policy.
In that case, please provide an explanatory paragraph, and we
shall include this here.
Joey> This is only a sampling, I don't have time to re-read all of the
packaging
Joey> manual right now.
Joey> 2) There is value in separating technical documentation, which can change
Joey> when the programs it documents change, from policy, which
Joey> can only change after debate on this list.
manoj
--
If you do something right once, someone will ask you to do it again.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
