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

Re: more comments on DDP policy

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:05:01PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> I think it might be right to have a cut-off point like this.  I would
> object rather strenuously to a DDP policy that required pkgs split by
> language.

Ok. I will give it a thought. We might find some middle ground..

> The upside of pkg splitting by language:
>   - smaller pkg size
> The downside:
>   - harder for maintainers

	As a matter of fact I was thinking on having the CVS automagically
create the packages as soon as new versions are available (with proper
debian/rules templates available in CVS too). The maintainer
would only have to upload them. 
	If you give templates for Makefiles (we currently have a mess but
they could _all_ be the same, after all they just compile SGML sources)
_and_ for package builds then the maintainers need not worry.
>   - more possibilities of bugs

	Probably not it done right (See above).

>   - more work for archive maintainers (kinda)

	Only on the first upload (new packages).
>   - confusion for users

I, as a user, feel less confused by a manualname-XXX package (with XXX
something I identify as my language) than by a manualname package which
I'm not sure provides a translation that is useful for me.

The current best practice, for some documentation packages, is to provide
-XXX packages. Not only when we are talking about documentation, try this:

 apt-cache search --names-only -- "-(de|es|ja|fr|ru|pt|ko|fi|en|hr|zh|cs|it|ca)$"

(and I have not included all the available languages in the list)

IMHO we should keep it this way. In any case, it might make sense to say
something on the lines of:

"For documentation which does not exceed XXX lines (or XXX kbytes of
compiled formats) packages should include all the available translations.
Binary Packages which are over XXX of size, however, should be broken into
several packages (one per language) following the convention:
packagename-XX which XX being the ISO code for the given language."



Attachment: pgp32PUxXRSoG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: