[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: busybox_0.45-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> This package violates policy in several ways:
>   - first of all, the busybox binary package does not include 
>     a copyright file, a changelog file or - indeed - a
>     /usr/[share/]doc/ directory!
>   - second of all, 
> E: busybox: symlink-should-be-relative bin/head /bin/busybox
> [...]
>   - third of all, I am not sure if it is a good idea to
>     include a package in the distribution that cannot be
>     installed into a system without breaking that system
>     (this package conflicts with many essential packages)
>     You should definitely bring this issue up on -devel or
>     -policy before reuploading (btw, I cannot find an ITP
>     for this package...) 
> If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
> override file requires editing, reply to this email.
> Your rejected files are in incoming/REJECT/.  (Some may also be in
> incoming/ if your .changes file was unparsable.)  If only some of the
> files need to repaired, you may move any good files back to incoming/.
> Please remove any bad files from incoming/REJECT/.

This package is _supposed_ to violate policy.  It is to be used exclusivly by
the debian-installer.  There is no way you could ever even install it onto your
workstation, since it conflicts with dpkg. 

The Debian installer does not need or want a /usr/[share/]doc directory or man
pages or copyrights or changelogs.  It just needs the certain files which are
used to install Debian.  Now, I could go through and include all those files
(in fact my first pass at packaging BusyBox had all that), but in discussion on
the boot-floppies mailing list it was agreed that this is not needed or wanted
(see the thread "Re: woody installation system" 

Joey Hess, leader of the woody boot floppies project recently responsed as
follows when I brought up this very concern:

    Subject: Re: woody installation system
    From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
    To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
    Delivered-To: andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com
    Envelope-to: andersen@xmission.com
    Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:26:51 -0700
    Mail-Followup-To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
    Resent-From: debian-boot@lists.debian.org

    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.

    see shy jo

    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Again, this is _only_ for the debian-installer. 


Erik B. Andersen   Web:    http://www.xmission.com/~andersen/ 
                   email:  andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

Reply to: