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

Re: An alternative to deb-make Re: deb-make

Herbert Xu <herbert@greathan.apana.org.au> writes:
> If you mean that the conffiles etc. are to be placed in those
> subdirectories in the Debian source packages that I am afraid that that
> is against the standard.  See the mailing list archives for discussions
> on this issue.  That was the reason debmake had to put those files in
> the /debian directory instead.

Then bugger the standard, because it's broken.

The standard, unfortunately, ignores many issues pertaining to
multi-deb packages, presumably because Ian, as familiar as he is with
the packaging system, simply wasn't sufficiently familiar with what
was involved in dealing with such packages on a day-to-day basis.

Look, for instance, at the scheme for using the whole dpkg-shlibdeps
and dpkg-gencontrol, and the contortions you have to go through in
order to generate different dependencies for different packages, and
then try to tell me that that design reflected a clear understanding
of what was going to simplify the lives of multi-deb package

It is, IMAO, time to correct all that.  If discussion of a tool to
replace debstd helps us realize that there are places where the
standard is sub-optimal, then we should update it.  It is not written
in stone.  It's been around for six or eight months, we've broken it
in, now it's time to look at the things about it that irritate and
annoy us and fix them---we're not talking about anything
revolutionary, but evolutionary.

Another, final, interesting point about the standard: it was also
submitted to the project as fait accompli---which I find ironic
considering that one of Ian's complaints against debstd is that it
wasn't submitted to the commentary of the developer community.


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: