Re: Planning to split doc-rfc
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 10:46:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> nick@debian.org (Nicolás Lichtmaier) wrote on 25.02.01 in <[🔎] 20010225004815.A31844@debian.org>:
>
> > > DRAFT STANDARDS doc-rfc-draft-std
> > > EXPERIMENTAL doc-rfc-experimental
> > > HISTORIC doc-rfc-historic
> > > PROPOSED STANDARDS doc-rfc-proposed-std
> > > STANDARDS doc-rfc-standard
> > > - doc-rfc-misc
> > > Comments? Better names? Should there be a dummy doc-rfc package to pull in
> > > the others?
> >
> > The packaging should be tematic,
>
> Are *you* going through the ~3000 RFCs and making a list which ones belong
> to each theme?
Eh? They are already classified by the RFC editor/IETF. However, their list
is a little different from the one above. It goes something like:
- Standards
- Draft Standards
- Proposed Standards
- Experimental
- Informational
- FYI
- BCP (Best Current Practice)
- Historic
>From the above, it looks as if "misc" will actually include "informational"
RFCs, so perhaps it should be renamed to reflect that.
> (And what will you do about overlaps? There's a *lot* of that.)
>
> It's not as if I haven't tried to come up with such a scheme for years.
Overlap should be easily solved with dependencies. Users may install a subset,
say, BCPs, and the "Informational" package would depend on that one.
--
- mdz
Reply to: