Christoph <email@example.com> writes:
> On 20 Feb 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Thus, my utility, and I think common sense, dictates a simple
> > structure:
> > debian/
> > package1/
> > package1-dev/
> > package-bin/
> This is the debmake 2.X.X scheme which violates policy. You are not
> allowed to create subdirectories below the debian directory. That was the
> reason for release 3.X.X
Then policy needs to be modified, because it does a poor job of
standardizing the way in which maintainers of multi-binary packages
should indicate a relationship between files and packages.
Reasonable standards for this stuff should be established---I think
that basic principle is aptly demonstrated by the very existence of
the policy manual.
Lack of standards has some downsides, and some impact on the purported
reasoning behind the new packaging standard.
For instance, the new packaging standard was intended to make it
easier for an interested party to make a "point release" of a
developer's package when that developer was out of touch or too busy
to do so herself. Lack of a standard can make this harder because it
means any interested party must spend more time figuring out the
original developer's intent.
Furthermore, lack of standards for this sort of thing, makes it more
likely that package layouts will undergo significant revision when a
new package maintainer takes over because she doesn't like the
previous maintainers "style"---and as I think we all know, major
revisions often entail new bugs or features lost because the original
mechanisms weren't well understood.
I think that changes to policy to standardize things that developers
are currently having to do on a widespread basis in a stricly ad hoc
fashion is simply good sense---though I understand that a lot of
people seem to disagree with this.
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