Re: New package standards - LAST CALL
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("Re: New package standards - LAST CALL"):
...
> I also think that when you make the new source package official, we
> should warn all maintainers of the base packages and ask them to convert
> their packages to the new standard. If they don't react in say 2 weeks,
> someone else can do it (I'll take some) like David did during the
> transition from a.out to ELF.
Yes. If a few people do a lot of packages it's probably quicker and
less error-prone, anyway, then having the maintainers do it
themselves. On the other hand having the maintainers do it themselves
will get them to learn the ropes ...
...
> Well, one other idea. Since the original source and the patch are kept
> in the archive, would it be possible to look for an additional architecture
> dependant patch? [...]
No. Any architecture dependencies should be avoided; if they can't
they should be dealt with at build-time in the package itself, rather
than by making several versions of the package.
> [..] It would be a tremendous advantage when porting to
> a new architecture - the porter need only supply the extra patch to the
> debian archive and it will "just work". Also, the patch will be in a public
> place so that the original maintainer can integrate the patch in the
> next version of the package.
The porter should make an architecture-independent patch (ie, one that
will work on any architecture) and then either:
(a) add `.1' to the Debian revision and release a new source package
with their binaries - they should send the patch to the original
maintainer for inclusion, too;
or
(a) send the patch to the main maintainer (or to maintonly@bugs) and
wait for it to be included.
Ian.
Reply to: