Re: Packages violating policy 8.2
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> On 22 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow outgrape:
>> I think that Policy 8.2 is fully applicable to your package then. It
>> is a MUST directive so your unwillingness to allow multiple versions
>> of your library to coexist does not affect the violation.
> I beg to differ. There is a rationale for the policy section:
And if it where optional then it would read SHOULD. Or what is the
difference between MUST and SHOULD if you can jsut choose to ignore both?
>> Following 8.2 you only have 2 choices: Split the package or provide
>> only static libaries and live with the wasted space. Otherwise the
>> packages is RC buggy.
> May I ask what is the underlying rationale for this judgement?
My motivation is that not following 8.2 will make it impossible to
convert the package to multiarch. For the rational of 8.2 itself you
have to read policy and ask the people who wrote it. But I think it is
pretty clear from the text: to be able to install multiple versions of
the library for smooth upgrades.
> In what way do you think splitting the package would work? Why is
The same way it works for each and every other library package that is
split in Debian.
> facilitating private packages for people who are working with SELinux
> a bad thing, when people who actually build and use these packages
> are aware of the current state of flux of SELinux?
It isn't a bad thing but you aren't doing it "right" (right as laid
out in policy).