On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 10:12:28AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > (1) impact on my packages, > > The proposal will not force you to change anything.
Why are you saying this? Earlier instances of the proposal were advertised as requiring a change. Future instances of the proposal may also, as might future policy which builds on the interface defined in this proposal. Being forced to change is an issue, but it's not the only issue -- because you're defining an interface that interface needs to be as correct as possible. And, as I said before, I believe that in its current form the impact of your proposal will be neutral or positive. > > (2) impact on a decent source package system. > > This proposal has nothing to do with a source package system. That's not true. You're defining an interface which must be addressed at the same abstraction level that a source packaging system addresses. Imagine a future debian system where dpkg can install binaries from a source package -- building and installing them on the fly. Perhaps with debugging symbols turned on for all executables. You're claiming that this system could operate in complete ignorance of this mini-interface you're creating? In its current form, I think your mini-interface could be a good thing for this potential environment. However, I don't see how you can claim that such an environment can reasonably ignore your mini-interface. -- Raul
