Re: woody installation system
On Sat Jun 17, 2000 at 09:30:04PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Sat Jun 17, 2000 at 08:13:54PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> >
> > That last isn't something that I am going to impose on the rest of you,
> > of course. But I would get pretty grumpy if we just continued incremental
> > improvements to the existing code base. It's time to throw one away
> > (borrowing the good bits), and build something better.
>
>
> Well then. Fearless Leader, andersee reporting for duty. :)
> I think as my first action as one of your minions, I will
> .deb'ify busybox for woody.
>
I have .deb'ed busybox, but before I upload anything I was wondering... Lintian
complains about missing man pages on all the apps. How important is it that I
comply with policy for something like BusyBox? I can add in full docs, full
manpages, do a full set of conflicts/replaces so that someone can do an 'apt
get install busybox' and actually have it work, but I suspect that few people
would want to do that to their workstation... :) I was thinking that just the
apps, no docs, no manpages, and just a set of conflicts would be sufficient...
Thoughts?
FYI: I have also made a busybox-static (which is lintian clean), which will be
a statically linked standalone rescue shell. Nice for those times when libc
disappears...
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen Web: http://www.xmission.com/~andersen/
email: andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Reply to: