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

Re: changes to Packages file



On 29 Jul 1997, Klee Dienes wrote:

> [ executive summary: I agree with all of these changes in principle,
>   but would like to defer deciding the implementation specifics for
>   4--6 weeks so that they can be considered in the context of the
>   broader package format changes I plan to propose then. ]

Ok, I don't have a problem with delaying this.

> Vincent Renardias <vincent@waw.com> writes:
> > So now we need to get the opinion from the dpkg maintainers... _(;
> 
> Sorry, the dpkg maintainer was getting his debian-related mail through
> master.debian.org and so was off-line for a couple of days.
> 
> I fully agree with the following proposed changes to the source
> packaging format:
> 
>   * include the package description in the mailed changes file
> 
>   * include build / source packaging date in source and binary
>     packages
> 
>   * provide reference to upstream sources, upstream maintainers, and
>     other upstream documentation as part of the debian package in a
>     machine-accessible format.

Good.

>   * provide a mechanism for finer-grain classification of the
>     package license, at least where this is practical

No, I think we have to drop this. Maintainers should only classify DFSG
vs. non-DFSG compliant--the rest should be up to the people who distribute
the packages, i.e. CD manufacturers. (You can't say a package can be
distributed if you don't know on what media, for example.)

> I'm concerned that we not allow these changes to increase the size of
> the Packages files too much (they're too big already), but I consider
> this indexing problem an issue to be solved separately from the
> problem of storing the information in the packages themselves.
> 
> In fact, I'm currently working on a new source packaging format to
> support many of these features as we speak.  It's extremely
> alpha-quality at this point, but it already supports the following
> features:
> 
>   * multiple signed upstream sources and patch files, while still
>     preserving safe source unpacking (no script-files)
> 
>   * source package dependencies and automatic package building in a
>     'chrooted' pristine build environment automatically constructed
>     at build time

Great. I'll contact you again about this when we raise the
source-dependency discussion again.

>   * storage of RPM-style .spec files for use in building RPMS and
>     dpkg-format packages from the same source package, as well as
>     automatic conversion to/from SRPM format (halfway done).
> 
> It's not quite ready for public review just yet, but I'd be happy to
> send a copy to anyone who's particularly interested (I expect the
> first alpha-release over this weekend).  For more information on the
> design goals, see the 'New Source Formats and Source Package
> Verification' and commentary posted to debian-devel around mid-May.

Please send me a copy, or make it publicly available in experimental or in
your home directory on master, for example.

> Given that I already have significant changes to the source package
> format currently in progress, and given that I'd like to stabilize
> 1.4.0.19 for release to stable as soon as possible, I'd like to
> propose the following:
> 
>  * we agree to all of the above changes in principle

I agree in principle. (However, we have to drop the `license classifation'
thing.)

>  * we defer deciding the exact implementation for 4--6 weeks until we
>    can consider them in relation to the new source packaging format

Ok.


Thanks,

Chris

--                  Christian Schwarz
                     schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian is looking     schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts     PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at    http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: