Re: Source packages: standard formats and interfaces as an alternative to centralisation.
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
[ Skipping the part that makes no sense to me ]
> With a simple debian/rules target, for instance ‘source’, the conflict about
> the source package formats can be made much milder, because it will be the
> choice of the maintainer to use or not dpkg-dev, debian/source/format, and the
> automatic patch production system.
That's going further than for the binary package building, even if the
process is controlled by debian/rules, it's always the dpkg-dev scripts
that are underlying and dpkg-deb -b.
Taking entirely dpkg-dev out of the story for building source packages
is not a desirable outcome IMO. And in any case you need at least support
of dpkg-buildpackage to call whatever new interface that you design for
that purpose.
> This solution would bring do-o-cracy back in the loop, with the dpkg-dev
I don't think we have ever lost do-o-cracy...
> (that they are in the first line to shape), and the package maintainers free to
> use another way if they dislike the approach taken by dpkg-dev.
That's counter-productive. We have far more flexibility in dpkg-source
than we ever had before, people could even invent new source formats
outside of dpkg-source and gain traction before getting them merged
officially.
I'm also not a dictator imposing my view (although some people like to
think that) I have changed my mind several times based on the feedback
that I got. I'd rather have further changes on the topic backed by a DEP
to avoid the miscommunication that we had concerning the new source
formats.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/
Reply to: