Re: Proposal for the tools policy
On 20/09/06, Miriam Ruiz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
According to the oppinions written in
http://wiki.debian.org/Games/ToolsDiscuss , and as I want to reach a consensus
as soon as possible, I want to make the following proposal for the packages
handled by the Games Team:
I agree with all points, but I would like to make some excetions in
*extreeme* cases for point 3. Exactly as Stefan said, autotools
bootstrapping is sometimes really ugly and should be excepted from
Also *extreeme* situations like the one in Glest where a clean rule
did not exist in the original package would have made the debian/rules
file a nighmare.
I have tried it, and it is - just picture that "jam clean" in the
package removes the Jamfile, which in turn leaves us with no target at
all; forcing clean to depend on patch and configure is ugly, to say
the least. Now things are more acceptable since the clean rule depends
only on configure, in order to have the clean rule available when
2) Use a patching system, preferably quilt but dpatch is also acceptable.
Explanation: If we don't modify the sources directly, we don't have to store
all of them in the versioning system. Having individual patches for
individual changes makes everything more clear. Using a patching system
instead of relaying in SVN logs makes the package analysis independent of
SVN. We won't make usage of the diff.gz files to store the changes to
I really like the reasining behind this, espacially now that I am
offline @ home. Thanks.
5) Original tarballs should go to http://pkg-games.alioth.debian.org/tarballs/
Explanation: It makes more sense having them stored in a directory than in
SVN or a versioning system.
Note: Currently, our SVN will reject all commits which want to upload
an .orig tarball.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein