Re: woody installation system
On Mon Jun 19, 2000 at 01:26:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Erik Andersen wrote:
> > 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?
>
> If the package is intended to be used for just the woody debian-installer,
> manpages and so on seem like bloat and a bad idea.
>
> However, we might want to come up with a new section of the archive to
> put such packages, since they arn't really full quality .deb's. I think
> woody/main/install-i386/modules/ makes sense, or something like that.
> woody/main/binary-i386/installer/ may be easier to set up, but is a bit
> less clean.
For the moment, I will just install it into utils until a new archive section
is established. I will also remove all the pointless docs and manpages.
For the moment, I will just include the set of busybox apps currently
in the potato boot floppies. If someone want to poke through the newer
stuff and pick additional stuff to include, great.
Sound ok?
-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: