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

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
> problems.

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.


Reply to: