Re: Sources vs Packages files
Which word, if any, does the u in udebs stands for?
Where is the new installer concept documented?
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Why is there no seperate source archive for the debian-installer packages?
> > Or, alternativley, simply a section in the main archive.
> >
> I am a memeber of the installer team, these are my person views, not
> official viewpoints from the team.
>
> In short becasue udebs dont have docs, they have been rejected from the
> main archive.
>
> The whole reason udebs exist is because the new installer is going to be
> a bit like a mini-distribution, it uses packages for the same benefits
> that the main debian distribution does.
>
> The installer will be able to connect to an ftp site and download new
> (or upgraded) components of the installer, this is the reason that udebs
> need to be available.
>
> The installer has to operate with as little hardware resources (disk
> space, ram) as possible.
> Becasue of this constrained environment, i personally consider that the
> policy guidlines that dictate what consititutes a "correct" debian
> binary package do not justly reflect the installers needs.
>
> The big sticking point is docs, policy demands that all packages have to
> have docs even if they arent needed, the installer doesnt want docs
> being distributed with binaries, too much overhead, if we can save 3kB
> then that equates to another hardware driver in the kernel.
> Supporting lots of hardware is much more important than having docs
> distributed with the binary package, expecially given that the docs for
> the installer will have a home for themself somewhere else.
>
> If you ask me, the best solution would be for policy to change and
> accept that the work of the installer team is just as valid and
> important as other parts of debian.
>
> udebs should be called debs and be allowed in main, policy should change
> and allow docs to be distributed seperately, udebs could be considered a
> sub packaging of a complient deb package containing a
> <package-udeb>.udeb and <package-doc>.udeb (or something to that effect)
>
> Sometime i think it would be much easier to just move them to
> sourceforge, which is a pretty bad reflection on policy IMHO.
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Shaul Karl <shaulka@bezeqint.net>
--
Shaul Karl <shaulka@bezeqint.net>
Reply to: