Re: several things
"E. Branderhorst" <branderhorst@fgg.eur.nl> said:
> [...] I uploaded a few easy to build packages [...]
> To make a long story short, does the debian community (or the devels)
> want such packages? If not, don't flame me but say it gently. If so,
> should the core system being seperated from the contributed (optional)
> stuff? Let me know.
I certainly don't speak in the name of debian community or devels.
However, I think that we need to define and articulate a position on
this. As debian becomes more and more popular, we'll see more and
more packages submitted by users who have installed debian and want to
contribute. Some of these packages will be of a type which we'll
want to adopt into what we'll come to regard as the core distribution,
and some will not. We need some guidelines for telling one from the
other, and policies for handling both categories.
> Another one: can the copyrights be compressed, or put on disk more
> efficiently. It's has no function "?" letting them reside their, but
> they are consuming space. Can they be stored in one compressed file,
> or should it be plain text. Perhaps a copyright program could be made
> to interface a compressed database with copyright messages.
Good question. The Guidelines document says that
/usr/doc/copyright/<package> should not normally be compressed.
Why not? Under what abnormal conditions should it be compressed?
> Another two: perhaps packages shouldn't install if no copyright was
> included, unless you force them to do anyway. The maintainer should
> take care of this but perhaps this is a protection of a proper
> "debian" system?
Another good one. IMHO, there should be more checking done both
before including a package into the distribution and before installing
it on the user's system to be sure the package is at least minimally
acceptable. A package without a copyright file isn't acceptable, by
our guidelines, and shouldn't be placed into the distribution.
Whether or not a package without a copyright should be installed
if presented to dpkg on a user's system is arguable. I'd say that
it should be installed without complaint, I think.
> Another three: A html [...]
I'm not very webbified, so I won't comment.
Reply to: