Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > @@ -3195,8 +3112,8 @@
> > <p>
> > Additionally, packages interacting with users using
> > <tt>debconf</tt> in the <prgn>postinst</prgn> script should
> > - install a <prgn>config</prgn> script in the control area,
> > - see <ref id="maintscriptprompt"> for details.
> > + usually install a <prgn>config</prgn> script in the control
> > + area, see <ref id="maintscriptprompt"> for details.
> > </p>
> > <p>
> > You seem to have changed "should" to "should usually", and I don't
> > see what the real difference is.
> Not all packages have to install config files or be buggy --
> for example, packages that only ask questions based on information
> available only after unpacking, for instance. Such packages may or
> may not ask questions, and the question they ask may need values
> gathered by programs that are contained in the package itself. In
> this case, there can be no config file -- and all the questions are
> conditionally asked in the postinst.
> Since this is not the default, I use the term "should usually"
> provide. not an unconditional should provide.
However, I think it's important that policy outline those cases in which
it's not a bug to omit a .config script. Doesn't the absence of the .config
script require additional by-hand handling of the templates which is
otherwise done automatically through apt?
> > <p>
> > - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
> > + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
> > several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
> > this separation is to be accomplished; rules for files within
> > - the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries"> instead.
> > + the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries">
> > + instead.
> > </p>
> > <sect id="sharedlibs-runtime">
> > I think the "should" there was good.
> This is something I want to discuss further. Consider the case
> where there is a package with a set of, say, 20 binaries with a lot
> of common code, and upstream decided to abstract it out into a shared
> lib. This is a shred lib used by anyone else, and it is changing
> rapidly enough that there is the equivalent of a soname change on
> every upload. There is no interest in supporting older versions, or
> even having multiple versions of that lib. In this case, either we
> can make packaging that software hard (since moving the lib out of
> /usr/lib etc may involve some work), or we allow some packages to
> include share libs in the package.
This tells me that the guidelines for when shared library packages must be
split up are still ill-defined in some corner cases. I don't think we
should be gutting such an important requirement from policy just because
there may be corner cases that need sorting, when the cost of non-compliance
with this requirement is so high.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.