On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 07:10:09PM +0000 , Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> On 18 Oct 1999 18:16:58 -0700, Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > 3) Where do we stop ? As someone says, there's nothing preventing
> > me from uploading as debian package every single .wav or .mov
> > file on the Internet just because it's useful.
>
> This is the real problem. Some things just don't belong in Debian,
> even though they legally and technically can be distributed via Debian.
>
> >This is what I believe are acceptable "pure data" packages:
> > 1) Data which is absolutely required for a program to work.
>
> Hmmm...what about theme packages for desktops? Will Debian allow packages
> of sound files, icons, patterns, and color selections for GNOME etc?
they are already there: gnome-audio(3MB), eterm-backgrounds (8MB) and propably
some other (not to mention the infamous gmt- packages)
> > 3) Documentation (documentation packages should still remain).
>
> Make that "documentation for other non-data packages in Debian."
>
> What happens when people start releasing packages with MPEG format
> training videos instead of text documentation?
yuck.
> > 4) Small examples or data sets.
>
> "Illustrative" examples might be a better term. "Small" is ill-defined;
> a "small" MPEG-2 example file might be dozens of megabytes.
:)
> >Pros of this policy:
> > 1) Makes Debian smaller.
> > 2) Avoids controversial materials (politics and religious texts)
>
> I can see it now...
>
> "Debian bans the bible but keeps all the foul language in the xscreensaver
> sources. What has this world come to? Somebody, think of the children!"
>
> ;-)
>
> >Cons:
> > 1) People which don't have access to the net find these packages
> > invaluable...
> > Reply: Yes, then create a separate project "WebDeb" with the goal
> > of packaging anything in the .deb format.
>
> I think this is by far the best solution, but I think Debian should be
> broken up into smaller, more independent pieces anyway. ;-)
this could be done not - priorities (I know, they are not always correct)
>
> ..deb is really just a tarball with extra information on the package and
> some guidelines for what should be inside it. It's much cleaner as a
> "pure data" encapsulation format for distribution than some of the things
> other people use, e.g. self-installing Win32 .EXE files.
>
> As other people pointed out, there are other advantages to having pure
> data in .deb format: easy distribution via apt, and management of the
> files when they're installed on the system.
so build a program that inserts the information about files unpacked from
downloaded archive. It could be useful also for other packages (rvplayer comes
to mind).
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
