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

Re: more comments on DDP policy

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:49:46AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> 3.5.2 Debian package
> Why is it necessary to include all this gunk.  This is just standard
> package naming.  I think this should be eliminated.


It needs to be rewritten.

>       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.

The problem with documentation in the DDP is that (sometimes) there is no
such thing as a version in the document (or it is not really useful). Some
users might be more confident knowing the document is dated in a given
time. Take harden-doc for example (which provides the "Securing Debian
Manual"), there is no way for users to know that it's old compared to the
latest version available.

Harden-doc (as a package) follows a different version as the manual itself
and, even if it followed it, a '2.8' version does not tell much to the
user. However, if the user believes the document to be updated as of
'december 2002' he can be more confident that it's not outdated.
>     *
>           o packagename_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

	If we provide PDF/HTML/TXT version for all languages and don't
separate different languages then we _do_ have a problem with package
sizes. Separation also leads to users installing _only_ what they want to
need without special tweaking (such as apt-lcoalepurge).

> 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.
	That would be great but, in any case, we might not want to give
users packages which are more than 5Mbs in size.

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

	Will add..


Attachment: pgpB8s8dfY430.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: