Re: Debian package categories half way summary
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 03:08:53PM +0000, Dave Swegen wrote:
> OK, these are the conclusions that seem to have been reached so far:
>
> * A new section, debian-data will be needed (could someone please summarise
> what conclusions have been reached regarding debian-data?).
>
> * Packages fall into one of four categories:
>
> 1) Programs
> 2) Data without associated programs (anarchist faq etc)
> 3) Data with associated programs (fortune, bible etc)
> 4) Data without associated progams but with relevance to debian/linux
> (HOWTOs etc)
>
> It seems there is agreement that packages in categories 1 and 4 go into the
> main distro, whilst category 2 packages go into debian-data. The sticking
> point now is category 3. It has boiled down to whether packages in that
> category (data and binary 'readers' ie fortune-mod) should go into the main
> distro or into debian-data.
>
> Now to my reasons why fortune et al should not be banished to debian-data:
>
> * The number of packages is small, and doesn't look like it's going to grow
> at any significant rate (unlike anarchist faq et al which potentially could
> grow a lot). The entire reason for this discussion was because of fears
> concering the size of debian growing out of all proportion.
"doesn't look like it's going to grow" is a gross understatement, as you
cite the map data yourself just a few lines below. Let's plan for the
(near) future, please.
> * The objective must surely be to provide the maximum amount of usefullness
> from the main distro: banishing a longstanding favourite such as fortune
> would not be doing anyone any favours.
That's just one package. Instead of putting every "category 3" package
into main just to save "fortune", let's put all of them into debian-data
and accept "fortune" into main for "historical reasons".
> * As always common sense should be used: of course the map data, even if it
> has a seperate reader shouldn't go into the main distro. I hope that
> anyone with a package which might cause problems would have the common
> sense to follow the motto "If in doubt ask".
I wish I were that optimistic. "common sense" is what has lead us to
long discussions like this one, time after time (first it was "purity",
now the "anarchy FAQ", what will be next?). I prefer a safer set of
rules, 2 and 3 to debian-data, no doubts, no need to ask.
> * I for one would not be happy if I had to buy an entire CD just to get
> fortune, dict etc.
I'm sure there are people that wouldn't be happy if they had to buy an
entire CD just to get the bible-kjv or the anarchy FAQ or the
UserFriendly cartoons (what? they aren't packaged yet? someone package
them! Hurry up!) ;-)
> * Because the packages contain binaries they have to subject to the normal
> bug-tracking and release procedures: ATM there is the possibility of
> debian-data not following these procedures.
It's *debian*-data. It will follow our policy, use our BTS and will have
a clear set of release procedures (perhaps different schedule from the
one for main/contrib/non-free/non-US, due to the nature of its
contents...).
> My suggestion is that we create a new sub-section within the main distro to
> put category 2 packages in, but the moment it causes the main distro to
> spill over onto an extra CD it is moved into a seperate section on the same
> level as main, non-US et al.
Instead of going half the way and waiting for trouble to happen, I
suggest we create a separate section now, and put there category 2 and 3
packages.
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
Reply to: