On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:48:44 -0500, Jonathan Yu wrote: > However, the real purpose for this message is to establish a policy > for the future. Thanks for bringing this up and driving it further. I have no strong opinions here, but I see the point of treating more-app-than-lib packages differently. What I'd like to have is a clear and simple policy so I know what I have to do :) Looking at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPerlGroup/OpenTasks/Applications it seems the rules could be: 1) For packages providing libs and scripts: - source package libfoo-perl - binary package libfoo-perl provides: foo (or optional: additional binary package foo) for well-known/important/... tools 2) For applications (App::Foo): - source package foo - binary package foo - (optional: binary package libfoo/something-perl if there are libs that can be reused) Am I reading this correctly? If yes, I'm ok with it, and hope that others are quicker to share their opinions than I was :) And then someone would have to propose a good wording and a patch for website/policy.pod. (And maybe Debian Perl Policy 4.2, unless we don't to go that way is 1) above doesn't change anything and 2) maybe doesn't apply?) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Pink Floyd: Welcome To The Machine
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature