Re: (Beware helix packages) Re: [CrackMonkey] The right to bare legs
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:20:48AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 3) Libraries - All possible effort should be made to make Debian the
> primary source of libraries. Period full stop. This is so important
> because of what we are seeing with helix and their special library
> packages now. Thus, I suggest the following:
I agree with this completely.
> a) If a add-on vendor needs a newer upstream library then they
> can follow standard NMU procedures, using a -0.1.helix type tag.
> b) If their is some critical bug in the Debian library then they
> should still follow NMU type procedures and work with the
> Debian library packager and upstream to make sure the next rev
> is properly fixed.
> c) I recommend the vendor provide a seperate section of their
> FTP site specifically for libraries, and tagged with a proper
> Release file. The libraries they collect there should be the
> libraries they use and have modified. It would be best if most
> of these files were exactly identical to what Debian ships.
> Rational:
> i) I expect people like helix will include woody
> libraries that work on a potato system. These can use the
> 'usual' 1.2-0.1.woody.1 tagging scheme and probably will not
> be included by Debian.
Our potato packages are going to move on to their own directory, so we
won't be trying to make packages work on both woody and potato. That
will resolve my having to put most library packages in with our woody
stuff.
As far as I can tell, the Helix GNOME support for woody is only going
to be about five packages.
> ii) I want the user to be able to say 'I want only helix gnome
> but pick the newest library from the union of
> debian+helix'. This is easiest if the libraries are
> seperated.
> iii) Libraries are truely a shared resource, we need to take
> special steps to ensure apps in Debian linked to them work
> and apps in Helix linked to them work - best way to that
> is to only have 1 library package that everyone uses and
> tests against.
I have one question. What is the preferred way for me to handle our
gtk package? This is a library package that we actually apply some
patches to for a slightly nicer user interface.
Peter
Reply to: