Source packages for documentation (was Re: Next approach)
Jim Pick writes:
> Maybe I should summarize in different language, to see if other
> people understand the concept as I understand it:
Your language seems to express quite the same I was thinking about,
but with quite a great deal of additionnal interesting stuff !
> What is inside a package would be determined by a field in the
> control file for the package. These files could have different
> filename extensions and be placed in different directories on
> the FTP sites depending on their contents - but the packaging
> system wouldn't care what they were.
Yes. but is this multi-extension feature really useful ? The directory
structure might be sufficient ?
> 4) Converters can be provided that will convert packages
> in a "source" state into packages in a "binary" state
> - but there might be multiple stages
> I'm using the terms "source" and "binary" loosely - and
> there might be multiple conversion steps involved. I
> also use the term "compile" loosely to signify the
> transition between states.
OK, you spotted why I'm reluctant to use these terms :)
> 5) The packaging system (or perhaps a new subsystem) can handle
> conversion from the source state to the binary states.
Wow! This reminds me a proposal I sent, requesting for comments about
an idea of a debian-specific server. ("RFC: a "debian-daemon"
project", 16th May). Great idea!
> (anyone else think this is cool? or am I out in outer space
This makes me a bit more confident, I was beginning to think I was
somewhere as you said :)
Yann Dirson <email@example.com>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .