Re: more comments on DDP policy
Adam,
I think you have good points and you have CVS access :-)
After all this is working document to create consensus.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:49:46AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
>
> 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.
I know your point but some package still do it like above example.
Maybe just recommend the latter example may have been what you wished :)
> 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.
I agree on your future view. But I waned to set some standarization
until your dream infrastructure is invented. Can you at least make
alternative description so we can decide which portion will survibe as
the final document. (See some other portion whare I and Javi have 2
different view.)
> 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?
Some of documents including mine usually run over limit of current TEX
in stable and testing. I heard new version in unstable will fix it but
testing script is frozen now. (I bet Javi's document is getting too
big. Something like 100 page is limit usually.)
> Also, that's not how TeX is spelled.
My appologies.
> Suggest the be a note that doc-base entries are recommended, if not
> required...
OK. Please write and commit your idea to CVS.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: