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

Re: Debian New Maintainer Guide 0.1

On 14.11.1998., at 15:13, Adam Di Carlo wrote:

>In article <[🔎] 199811142014160410.00D75C07@cibalia.gkvk.hr>, "Josip Rodin"
<joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:

>Well, you should be writing for slink anyhow, since any Debian
>developer needs to be running it.  We're not really accepting packages
>for hamm anymore.  See the Developer's Reference for why not.

When I read the Developers reference I didn't see that running
unstable is a muß (maybe it was old version)?
And don't you think this is just a little bit unreasonable, because
of the vast amount of files that have to be downloaded, since
most of us don't have ways to get current slink 'snapshots' on CDs?
Yes, I know that appropriate dependencies must be met, but
for some packages it's just libc6.
Maybe if there was some machine like master or va, and running
the most recent unstable, with lots of processor power - so we
could all recompile in less then hour, instead of getting unstable?
Yes, I know that upgrading to slink isn't so time/phonecost consuming
when you do it regularily, but you must start upgrading from the
start of every new unstable?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong...

>> Do you have any reason to say that I should remove this
>> reccomendation?  Maybe I should put debmake (and devscripts? see
>> below) in 'suggestions'?
>Debmake (aka debstd) is officially deprecated, but not officially
>sanctioned against.  You should mention that.  Devscripts, while I'm
>not completely happy with it, is ok.  I wouldn't even *suggest*
>debmake, personally; no discredit to the current maintainer, who is
>doing a great job.

Or should I just remove them, because they are mentioned in
debhelper documentation, and after all, debhelper was built from

>> Ok. And by the way, should I remove the minor numbering (5.1 and
>> 5.2) because I don't mention it in the table of contents?
>Just move to debiandoc-sgml and you don't need to worry about it.
>You're doing all this HTML work to simulate debiandoc-sgml... it's
>really a waste of your time.

What a huge work... I'm already sweating ;))
I already said I'll convert to dd-s, wait a few days...

>It goes with 'rules'.  I just think that there should be, like, a
>little description list (<dl>) giving short one-liners about what all
>the dh_* scripts are for, and referring ppl to the man pages for more
>info.  (BTW, debiandoc-sgml has <manref> tag too!)

I think I can make it tonight.

>>> You also need to add a section talking about maintainer scripts.
>> And those are the ones from 'devscripts' package? I see no use for
>> most of them to a new maintainer (because I am also one :), in the
>> document I don't use build/release but dpkg-buildpackage/dupload.
>No, I'm talking about postinst, preinst, postrm, prerm.  Just tell the
>new user to try to avoid maintainer scripts if they possibly can (they
>are complex) -- point them to the Packaging Manual.

Oh... it will be just a short note.

>> Or maybe I'll describe it all with devscripts... I'm really puzzled
>> now :)
>Well... hmm.  I don't think devscripts really needs a lot of
>treatment.  Maybe.  Do you go into 'build' and all that?  I don't use
>that stuff.

No I don't (already said that). Another reason to put them out of
the guide.

>See the brief descriptions of maintainer tools at the end of the
>developer's reference also.

You mean 8.1 Overview... ? I've seen it, but most of it is already
in the guide - only cvs-buildpackage isn't, but that isn't so interesting
to new maintainers.

/*- enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/ -*/

Reply to: