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.
Osamu
Reply to: