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

Re: Updated maint-guide contents, question on style

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:30:51AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Section 2.4 ("Package name and version") might need a transfusion
> from 1.5, but for now I'm just fixing up the existing version.

I did try my first try on this and commited.
> The instructions for creating the source package name never say that's
> what you're doing; instead they just make a big deal about shortening
> "John's little editor for X" because it's more than one word.  Who
> cares?  Not whoever named maint-guide or debian-policy... if the
> upstream tarball is johns-little-editor_0.1.tar.gz, renaming it to
> jle4x will just make it unrecognisable in the WNPP list.

I agree. This is inherited.  Let's read recent policy discusiion and
updates and reflect to here.

> Section 2.5 says that when packaging gentoo I should pick the "single
> binary" package type because gentoo "creates only one binary" -
> apparently meaning "creates only one compiled executable".  But this
> is irrelevant; I might be packaging a dozen executables into a single
> evenmoreutils.deb, or I might be packaging mytextdata.deb plus
> mytextdata-doc.deb!  It needs to state that "binary" here means
> "binary-as-opposed-to-source package", and provide some (pointers to)
> guidance on how to decide how many binary packages there should be.

Good point.  Later.

> Irrelevant footnote: the package description for gentoo says
>   If you still prefer to hand-edit configuration files, they're fairly
>   easy to work with since they are written in an XML format. 
> <para><sarcasm type="bitter">Oh <emphasis role="strong">hurrah</emphasis>.</sarcasm></para>

That's Debian.

Good night.


Reply to: