Re: New package standards - LAST CALL
Michael Alan Dorman writes ("Re: New package standards - LAST CALL "):
> In message <m0up1QD-0004OEC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>, Ian Jackson writes:
> >Therefore I propose that unless someone raises a serious problem or
> >issue within the next week or two the new packaging guidelines as
> >described in the draft dpkg programmers' manual, the draft Debian
> >policy manual and as implemented by dpkg 1.3.x, will become official.
> I hate to even ask this, since if we want to make this change for the
> next release, but can we have just a bit more time?
> I have been singularly busy of late, and have only recently gotten to
> the point of being able to read the new docs you put up, and while
> everything seems sensible "on paper", I worry that it we don't have
> people actually try it out, there's going to be some unexpected
I've tried very hard to leave hooks all over the place, especially in
the parts where the new scheme is more automatic than the old.
It won't be a disaster if we don't get everything converted.
> > * Automation of the generation of .changes files from information in
> > a parseable changelog and elsewhere.
> I have installed the changelog macros, and find they work well.
> Finally, though you say the documents are just cut-n-paste from other
> stuff, they seem to do a better job of documenting some of the
> "conventions" that we've adopted over the last several months, WRT
> shared libraryies and the rest.
> And if you're creating them from your linuxdoc-sgml hack, I'm quite
> interested that you make it available for others use. It seems much
> cleaner than the original. Or maybe that's just a function of a
> better conversion tool.
:-). The better conversion tool helps. But having a DTD that only
describes things that are actually implemented helps too.