On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:49:46PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 22:40 +0200 schrieb gregor herrmann:
> > I tentatively think the idea is good; I don't really care about the
> > name :)
ACK (on both).
> > The problem might be that the set of packages is not
> > trivial/uncontroversial; I'm not sure I need cdbs (or cmake), I've
> > never heard about bzr-builddeb, I miss cowbuilder (and also
> > svn-buildpackage and git-buildpackage, and maybe dh-make) ... So
> > yes, the idea is interesting, but the selection of packages might
> > need some consideration :)
True, but I don't see the controversy here as being more controversial
than other choices we already have to make in the archive, such as the
"Recommends" line of devscripts.
So, if introducing the meta-package is OK (and I can hardly see any
drawback in introducing it), the package will have a maintainer which
will decide upon its (weak) dependencies.
> Then let's put the uncontroversial into Depends, the common (this
> needs discussion) into Recommends and the others into Suggests.
Indeed.
> Here's the starting point for discussion:
I don't have specific comments on the various items ATM, just a
suggestion might be useful as starting point: have a look at devref,
there is a section about various utilities coming handy in packaging, it
might provide good "coverage testing" for the dependencies of the meta
package.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature