Re: Status of Debian Policy
On 15 Jun 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Baker) writes:
> > Would programs _have_ to use this library, or is implementing the same thing
> > in acceptable? The latter has problems in that it forces us to keep the same
> > method, but I don't want to see lots of #ifdef debian appearing in the
> > original source; apart from anything else it doesn't look good being
> > non-standard even if what we do is superior.
> I think that we should develop this library, and release it to the
> public just like any other upstream package. We should (if possible)
> write it as a distribution independent solution to the problem and
> then package it for Debian. Finally name it something other than
> libdebian, and we'd probably have a good chance of getting others to
> start using it in their upstream sources for all platforms.
This really is an _excellent_ idea! So, we just need a volunteer to
implement and maintain this "upstream library". (The packaging for Debian
should not be a problem.)
If I remember it correctly, someone said that he already has implemented
these locking function. Is this person listening?
BTW, there is also the "lockfile" command that's included in the procmail
distribution. Perhaps we could convert this into a "liblockfile" library?
Thanks (I'm really happy to get some feedback about these policy
questions, finally :-),
-- Christian Schwarz
Don't know Perl? email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .