[This is my last post on -devel on this topic. More discussion
encouraged in debian-project.]
Debian is about creating a Unix/linux/hurd distribution, not about
packaging everything under the sun in the .deb format.
I think we need a policy on "pure data" packages.
"Pure data" packages are a pr
Philippe Troin writes:
> Comments welcome, but ON debian-project only please.
I like it, but... do I get to keep fortune? I *like* my fortunes, and
I feel bad agreeing with your sentiments on data whilst using this
package.
--
Decklin
Written with Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org/
Hi *,=20
I am the maintainer who uploaded that big package and you convinced me=20
that it makes no sense to have something like this in Debian.=20
SUMMARY: You probably do not want to read all this. It is only a bad=20
excuse for wasting Debians bandwidth but I would like to tell you my=20
motiv
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 06:16:58PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> "Pure data" packages are a problem because:
> 2) There is NO packaging needed. It's just a tar ball.
Well, it has to be arranged according to policy (ie, /usr/share/doc/foo,
instead of just ./foo), and running things like install-
> Debian is about creating a Unix/linux/hurd distribution, not about
> packaging everything under the sun in the .deb format.
>
> I think we need a policy on "pure data" packages.
I tend to agree with you. I once suggested at least moving them out
of "main" and in to "doc" or "text" or some othe
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 08:49:53AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > What happened to the data section project, this gmt package is just data,
> > the
> > worlds coastline in very detailled format i think. It is useful, and is not
> > a
> > bloat. A bloat was when there were more than two version
Hi,
> Well yes - I agree that they do not expressly say that. I didn't say that
> in the first place. What made my nerves tingle is the omission of the
> fact that there /is/ such a distribution already that did not show up only
> yesterday - namely Debian as the official partner of the FSF...
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 01:17:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Like bitchx, or SATAN, or nmap, or devfs? :)
Or SeX? ;-)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
""
(John Cage)
> Examples of data packages which does NOT belong to debian (IMHO):
> 2) Any kind of text easily findable on the web (RFCs (even though I
> love to have RFCs around, but we have a draw a line))
NO!! RFCs are *very* important when writing software. They are the
standards upon which a large
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Gerhard Poul wrote:
> I don't think that there is something like an 'official' partner of the FSF.
> AFAIK Debian evolved out of a GNU Project.
>
> btw: RMS != rms :-)
Well - Debian is the preferred GNU/Linux distribution of the FSF - by rms'
words. As can be seen from the
Since we are discussing how to handle data, including many documents. Why
not use something similar to FreeBSD's ports? That is, we provide a
utility that will download the data from its source (using a link that we
provide to an ftp archive somewhere), check its md5sum, extract the data,
and
I also find it *very* useful to have doc-rfc and doc-iana. I'd keep
fortune-data out of tradition. On the other hand, I'd ditch all of
the linux magazines (lg, pluto, I think there are others?) without a
second thought...
I'd argue that doc-rfc has sort of the same niche as doc-HOWTO. Not
sure
On 19 Oct 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote:
> Ports has probably advanced, you'd really want * set of mirrors
> (multiple or pattern URLs) * md5sum for exact match, but
> easy-to-upgrade option
The FreeBSD users that I know like the ports system very much. It's
pretty slick.
> The
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 09:57:30PM -0400, Decklin Foster wrote:
> Philippe Troin writes:
>
>
> > Comments welcome, but ON debian-project only please.
>
> I like it, but... do I get to keep fortune? I *like* my fortunes, and
> I feel bad agreeing with your sentiments on data whilst using this
> p
On 18 Oct 1999 18:16:58 -0700, Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think we need a policy on "pure data" packages.
Start by defining what a "pure data" package is. Here's my humble attempt:
"pure data packages are packages which consist of minimal debian/rules
which simply re-package a
[ I don't cross post to debian-devel, but I think a lot of people haven't
got the time to subscribe to debian-project and receive Debian's leader
proposal. Actually, I have fetched the message from the archive...]
> Here is the proposed procedure for handling new-maintainer requests. Any
> comment
Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) The way the Debian archive works requires the data to be stored
> twice (source package and .deb).
Why not allow Source only packages ?
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Thierry Laronde writes:
> > The procedure can be divided in a couple of stages:
> > 1. initial contact
I think he's missing step 0, "wait".
> Even for somebody like me, not even a debian maintener, the problems
> are obvious. And it's clear that the problem is not related to the
> new mainteners
[f'up]
On Tue, 19 October 1999 21:43:57 +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Why not allow Source only packages ?
Something like that is the only workable thing, methinks.
Having a source where a source is 99+ % the same data is waste.
Before that is agreed on (and there is a need, I read it
here) I
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 07:10:09PM + , 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
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK, so should I upload the MPEG of South Park's Eric Cartman singing
>"Stan's Mom is a Bitch" too?
Well.. make that "I'm sailing away" and I'm all for it.
Mike.
--
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:51:49PM +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> There's this current thread on the size of Debian's ftp archive
> (started with someone noting the size of `gmt-coast-full', ~47M)
>
> I think this is a moot discussion... just look at disk prize these
> days. Here in Germany, a
22 matches
Mail list logo
