On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:42:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> There is _absolutely_ no call for other packaging tools, and
> Anthony> absolutely _no_ need for a standard to make this easy or
> Yeah, right. There is never any need for co
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Julian, please note the above: this is "who's talking about
Anthony> dpkg anyway".
This is getting no where fast.
Anthony> There is _absolutely_ no call for other packaging tools, and
Anthony> absolutely _no_ need for a standard to make
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:45:33AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> >> *Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the i's and cross the t's. A
> >> package should be buildable using the bits mentioned in policy. Any
> >> package may, however, choose to add any extra
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:29:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> The documentation should be found wherever the dpkg
> Anthony> maintainers want it, not wherever the -policy maintainers
> Anthony> think might be fun.
> What policy contai
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> The real question is whether maintainers are meant to build
Anthony> using the features of dpkg, or the ones listed in
>> *Sigh*.
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> The documentation should be found wherever the dpkg
Anthony> maintainers want it, not wherever the -policy maintainers
Anthony> think might be fun.
What policy contains won't be documentation. It shall be a
standard interface that must be
* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020510 09:59]:
> There is, I have just realised, a middle way, which satisfies your
> concerns and mine. There is an official list, maintained by you, and
> for convenience, the information could be included in policy, with the
> note that the official list can
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:25:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For
> > example, when talking about shared and static libraries, there may be
> > exceptional cases where both the shared library and the development
> > parts (headers and static library) live in the same package. Then one
> > wou
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 03:48:28AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > My suggestion for a
> > policy rewrite it to move to the standard RFC uses of MUST and SHOULD,
> > and indication RC-ness in an orthogonal way.
>
> In short, this isn't going to happen. There'll be a separate document,
> maintained
-project Bcc'ed only.
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:17:28PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:02:47AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > > Then each section could either have the structure:
> > > > > or we coul
On 09-May-02, 13:02 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
> RFCs have a different goal to -policy. RFCs specify things that get
> implemented by different groups and have to be interoperable. -policy
> doesn't.
Debian packages get built by several hundred different people and have
to make consistent choic
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 03:48:28AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I'm concerned about this because when I tried passing over
> > > "release-critical policy issues"
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:02:47AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > Then each section could either have the structure:
> > > > Policy dictate s
> > > > Discussion, useful information, guidelines, examples
> > > > or we could me
On 09-May-02, 12:48 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > My suggestion for a
> > policy rewrite it to move to the standard RFC uses of MUST and SHOULD,
> > and indication RC-ness in an orthogonal way.
>
> In short, this isn't going to h
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> The real question is whether maintainers are meant to build
> Anthony> using the features of dpkg, or the ones listed in
> *Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the i's and cross t
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If the dpkg authors would like to hand off some of their design decisions
> > to -policy on a generalised basis, I'm sure they'd say so. It seems a bit,
> > well, wron
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Then each section could either have the structure:
> > > Policy dictate s
> > > Discussion, useful information, guidelines, examples
> > > or we could merge them, and have policy dictates all in the form MUST,
> > > SHOULD, MA
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'm concerned about this because when I tried passing over
> > "release-critical policy issues" to the policy group, it didn't work. [..]
> Strawman (to quote lots of
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
Adam> have time. We implement those that are interesting t
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Julian> People *used* to make that complaint. And if we now move to having a
> Julian> lean policy standards document and a developers reference and a best
> Julian> programming advice document and a dpkg documentation document
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If the dpkg authors would like to hand off some of their design decisions
> to -policy on a generalised basis, I'm sure they'd say so. It seems a bit,
> well, wrong-headed for -policy to be trying to take control of dpkg though.
Quit
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:34:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:09:11AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Part I: The Debian Archive
> > 1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
>
>
> "Components" is a much bet
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam> We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
> Adam> have time. We implement those that are interesting to us when
> Adam> we have free time. I don't
>>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
Adam> have time. We implement those that are interesting to us when
Adam> we have free time. I don't think either one of us would feel
Adam> comfortable being led by another
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Here is a very brief attempt at a draft structure...:
>
>Part I: The Debian Archive
...
>Then each section could either have the structure:
>
> Policy dictates
> Discussion, useful information, guidelines, examples
I like this very much. Just for eas
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:13:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Luca> At last we need a document that tells maintainers how to build
> Luca> a dpkg package from source, assuming both to be Debian policy
> Luca> compliant (since we choose dpkg as our official packaging
> Luca> tool). Such a
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:20:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Julian> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >>
> >> Refer to a dpkg reference instead and document extra restrictions
>
> Julian> Su
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This is rather non-sensical: all packages /are/ left to the whimsy of
> the dpkg developers. If you don't believe me, I'm sure Wichert or Adam
> will be happy to introduce some random bugs in dpkg 1.10.x to demonstrate.
Just say the word, and we'd be hap
>>""Luca" == "Luca <- De Whiskey's - De Vitis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Luca> The dpkg reference should describe what is a dpkg package and
Luca> its internals:
As well as any new or optional input or output, and actions
not required for packaging (dpkg-deb -x details do not need
is mail can be a starting point :)
ciao,
- Forwarded message from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging
practice
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:09:11AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Part I: The Debian Archive
> 1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
"Components" is a much better word to use here. (And is the word used
everywhere but -policy, just ab
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian> People *used* to make that complaint. And if we now move to having a
> Julian> lean policy standards document and a developers reference and a best
> Julian> pro
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:20:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian> Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
> Julian> everything necessary should be in policy. q
> On the other hand, all packages
Is there any reason for this thread to still be on -project? It's entirely
about rewriting debian-policy now, isn't it?
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:32:11PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > So if the dpkg reference doesn't document everything that Debian needs
> > in this respect, what is the best
Previously Grant Bowman wrote:
> This is somewhat an aside, but this is already moving away from
> GNU/Debian Linux specific through several ports of GNU/Debian. There
> are the hurd, bsd and win32/cygwin ports already.
I have never been able to find patches for the win32/cygwin port though.
I kn
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020502 09:54]:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I understand that dpkg can be used elsewhere than Debian, but
> > it's de facto purpose is to serve as the Debian packaging system.
>
> I'm somewhat interested in having dpkg accepted in other environments
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> I do hope you trust is to make changes sensibly. In fact the current
Wichert> reference draft already has some information on the backward and
Wichert> forward compatibility guarantees dpkg gives.
Oh,, absolutely. But
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On the other hand, all packages must not be left to the whimsy
> of the dpkg developers either; since potentially large numbers of
> packages would be impacted by such changes.
I do hope you trust is to make changes sensibly. In fact the current
referen
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
>> everything necessary should be in policy.
Wichert> I'm not sure. I see them more as complementing each other, much l
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>> Refer to a dpkg reference instead and document extra restrictions
Julian> Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
Julian> eve
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> People *used* to make that complaint. And if we now move to having a
Julian> lean policy standards document and a developers reference and a best
Julian> programming advice document and a dpkg documentation document, we'll
Julian
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
> everything necessary should be in policy.
I'm not sure. I see them more as complementing each other, much like
RFC1855 (netiquette) complements RFC822 (email format) or how a
users manual comp
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Part I: The Debian Archive
> > 1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
>
> non-us is a different archive.
I understand; this was just an imprecise abbreviatio
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Part I: The Debian Archive
> 1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
non-us is a different archive.
> Part II: Packages and metadata
Refer to a dpkg reference instead and document extra restrictions
Wichert.
--
__
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:44:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> Policy at the moment provides a fairly thorough grounding in
> Anthony> Debian's best practices. That's highly useful.
>
> Thorough is a matter of opinion. I think it is inconsistent,
> bumbling mess, occasionall
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 12:03:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > and meet
> > the most frequent complaint about the old policy + packaging manual:
> > they contradict, and I have to look in two documents.
>
> Considering the packaging manual doesn't exist anymore, I don't see how
> anyone could
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 06:03:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Debian policy should be the minimalistic set of rules that
>> packages follow, and expect other packages to foolow too, in order to
>> have the system be greater than the sum of
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 06:03:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Debian policy should be the minimalistic set of rules that
> packages follow, and expect other packages to foolow too, in order to
> have the system be greater than the sum of the parts. This is what
> allows packages to d
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Apropos to that, Policy proper contains elements that ought
>> > not to be in there, but remain as vestigial documentation of dpkg
>> > (which is how policy started). Policy is
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Apropos to that, Policy proper contains elements that ought
> > not to be in there, but remain as vestigial documentation of dpkg
> > (which is how policy started). Policy is going to be cleaned up and,
> > and perhaps
At 11:26 pm, Wednesday, May 1 2002, Julian Gilbey mumbled:
> That sounds like a fabulous idea. What I would *really* like to see
> happen (and help with), post-woody, is something like the annotated C
> reference manual, which has the standard clearly identified, but lots
> of extra bits of ratio
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apropos to that, Policy proper contains elements that ought
> not to be in there, but remain as vestigial documentation of dpkg
> (which is how policy started). Policy is going to be cleaned up and,
> and perhaps
52 matches
Mail list logo
