Re: more comments on DDP policy
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org> writes:
> 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.
Isn't this reinventing the wheel? Shouldn't it be the document
maintainers that release packages? Isn't the build and such from CVS
already automated with cvs-buildpackage? Seems like overdesign to me.
OTOH, I could see how you could have some kinda helper that would be
invoked and convert a debian/control.in file or something and burst
out the debian/control and all that. But still it sounds like tons of
work -- does anyone have a working example?
> 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.
I'm not convinced they could all be the same. I would see some
common prefix rules and such to do common things.
You're pretty much talking about a debmake style system which takes
over all the build and pkg assembly tasks. I don't really think
that's sound design. E.g., why debhelper is better than debmake.
> > - more possibilities of bugs
>
> Probably not it done right (See above).
Well, show me the code, I guess.
> > - 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.
Well, that's certainly a valid point.
> 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."
Seems ok to me.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: