Re: Sources vs Packages files
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Why is there no seperate source archive for the debian-installer packages?
> Or, alternativley, simply a section in the main archive.
I am a memeber of the installer team, these are my person views, not
official viewpoints from the team.
In short becasue udebs dont have docs, they have been rejected from the
The whole reason udebs exist is because the new installer is going to be
a bit like a mini-distribution, it uses packages for the same benefits
that the main debian distribution does.
The installer will be able to connect to an ftp site and download new
(or upgraded) components of the installer, this is the reason that udebs
need to be available.
The installer has to operate with as little hardware resources (disk
space, ram) as possible.
Becasue of this constrained environment, i personally consider that the
policy guidlines that dictate what consititutes a "correct" debian
binary package do not justly reflect the installers needs.
The big sticking point is docs, policy demands that all packages have to
have docs even if they arent needed, the installer doesnt want docs
being distributed with binaries, too much overhead, if we can save 3kB
then that equates to another hardware driver in the kernel.
Supporting lots of hardware is much more important than having docs
distributed with the binary package, expecially given that the docs for
the installer will have a home for themself somewhere else.
If you ask me, the best solution would be for policy to change and
accept that the work of the installer team is just as valid and
important as other parts of debian.
udebs should be called debs and be allowed in main, policy should change
and allow docs to be distributed seperately, udebs could be considered a
sub packaging of a complient deb package containing a
<package-udeb>.udeb and <package-doc>.udeb (or something to that effect)
Sometime i think it would be much easier to just move them to
sourceforge, which is a pretty bad reflection on policy IMHO.