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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

On Wed, Jul 29 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>         I think that we would need a clear policy of what packages are
>>  expected to do as well. Policy does not mandate that helper packages be
>>  used in Debian packages, and we can't suddenly start mandating that
>>  they be used.
> I think you misunderstood it. The archive would start to accept
> .ddebs, but they won't be mandatory. Then packages using
> debhelper/whatever would build .ddeb packages if appropriate, but
> packages not using helper tools would keep working as they do now, not
> building .ddebs (not automatically by debhelper at least, but they
> could build them manually or use some other mechanism) and would still
> be accepted. So nothing would be forced to use helper tools. It's
> rather that if you want automatic .ddeb packages, you can get them
> with debhelper, but you can build them manually or use something else
> if you wish. Not ideal, but I haven't found a better alternative.

        On the contrary, I think you are missing the point. The
 work-unit put in by developers is not the only issue this brings up,

        We do not want to have different helper package start inventing
 a helper specific way of building  ddebs, with no clear standard tha
 they are following.

>>         So, we figure out first exactly what needs to be done, and then
>>  the helper packages implement that standard; as opposed to the standard
>>  being whatever the current helper package implementation happens to be.
> That would be, packages may start to build .ddeb packages. Then helper
> tools or packages themselves can do the work to build them. For helper
> tools, we would get them automatically without any changes to the
> packages themselves, and that's something around 97% of the archive.

        While archive coverage is nice, ensuring  that a ddeb is
 properly defined, and that all the different ways of creating ddebs are
 consistent, should happen first.

        Coming up with a standard and policy after the fact, with 97% of
 the archive not quite following policy would be a nightmare, no?

Chown up.  Chow down.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: