more comments on DDP policy

[Adam DiCarlo <aph@debian.org>]

3.5.2 Debian package

    * Source package: (contains SGML source only)
          o packagename_version_all.tar.gz
          o packagename_version_all.dsc

Why is it necessary to include all this gunk.  This is just standard
package naming.  I think this should be eliminated.

      or,
          o packagename_version_all.tar.gz
          o packagename_version-buildversion_all.diff.gz
          o packagename_version-buildversion_all.dsc

   The latter format is preferred even if you are the upstream. 

Why is it recommended to use this numbering?  Seems silly to me.

    *
          o packagename_version_all.deb

            This is a virtual package which installs packages of all
            languages. (FIXME: this is debatable. Currently many
            package like this just install the English original.)

      Use of this name for the English package,
      packagename-en_version_all.deb is discouraged.
          o packagename-LANG_version_all.deb

      This is the actual package which installs each language.

I only mildly disagree with this.  I'm thinking it's best to ship all
languages in _all.deb.  But I think it's silly to have all these -ja
and -sp etc packages, leads to package bloat.  Ideally i18n stuff is
shipped in a special way in the .deb files that can be stripped or
better yet not downloaded if local configuration is against it; less
ideal but also functional is a post-install purger akin to
apt-localepurge.  I'm looking at adding something that does this
to doc-base once the i18n work is done.

   3.7.3 TEX

Is this section even necesary?  Are there really manuals that can't
use default pool sizes?  If there are, wouldn't that be a TeX bug?

Also, that's not how TeX is spelled.


Suggest the be a note that doc-base entries are recommended, if not
required...

-- 
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>