Re: Proposed question topics
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:58:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10164 March 1977, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
> > 1. debhelper
> > I've found that some applicants don't really understand debhelper
> > very well. I'd like to add a question that asks what debhelper is,
> > what purposes it serves, what alternatives are available, and how to
> > use it properly (debian/compat, build-depends, ${misc:Depends},
> > basically the stuff covered in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/03/msg00002.html).
>
> Isnt that more for the package check? 98% of them are having dh_
> packages, so let them prepare a really good one of it.
> Next step of course redo the whole stuff without dh.
No. I absolute detest the idea of making NMs do pointless work. If I
had been asked to rewrite one of my packages to not use dh while I was
going through NM, I would have immediately quit and never joined Debian.
I had better things to do with my time.
Plus it's completely trivial. Just build with DH_VERBOSE=1 and watch
what it does.
All I really want to ensure is that the applicants have a general
understanding of debhelper.
> > 3. debconf, ucf
> > I think applicants should have an understanding of when to use
> > debconf in their packages, how to use it, and when ucf can be used in
> > conjunction with it.
>
> ucf, hrmm. One can enhance the question we already have that points to
> debconf, so it includes more debconf and also ucf related stuff.
But that question does not inherently go into any detail. In
particular, I think question priorities should be dealt with.
> > 4. debconf notes vs. debian/NEWS
> > Which to use...
>
> See above.
>
> > 5. testing migration
> > How packages migrate to testing, how to diagnose and fix migration
> > problems, and where to ask for help...
>
> Thats in the urgency question together with the "Many Debian suites" one.
I don't think either of those questions go into enough detail, unless I
manually prod the applicant.
> > 7. library packaging
> > I'd like to see some more questions about library packaging, since it
> > can be very tricky and many people, including existing developers,
> > make mistakes with it. In particular sonames, shlibs,
> > ${shlibs:Depends}, dpkg-shlibdeps, and especially proper use of
> > dh_makeshlibs.
>
> Not everyone will package libs later. The basic questions I have should
> give them the right directions, including a reading of the lib guides we
> have, so they remember later where too look. Anything more is IMO too
> much, some AMs already strip (most of) the library questions.
But all package maintainers will have to deal with libraries in some
way. I strongly believe they should have a basic understanding of how
Debian deals with libraries. Furthermore, any developer can upload a
library package. Just because they don't think they will when they
enter NM doesn't mean they should get a free pass.
Let's face it--a large number of libraries in Debian are not packaged
well at all. It's an obvious problem, and it's something that NM should
address.
> > That last one reminds me--the question:
> > Why does a foo-dev package depends on foo?
> > Why is it fooX-dev and not foo-dev in some cases?
> > is confusing. Many applicants read that and say, "huh?" I think the
> > question is trying to ask why libraries are split into libblahX and
> > libblah-dev packages, and why it can be useful to have multiple -dev
> > versions for a library. Joerg, can you please clarify?
>
> Yes, it asks why there are sometimes multiple version of one dev
> package.
OK. What about the foo-dev depends on foo part?
FWIW, I've rewritten this question as follows in my local templates:
Why does a libfoo-dev package depend on libfoo? Why is it
libfooX-dev (where X is an integer) and not libfoo-dev in some
cases?
I'm still not very happy with the question though.
--
For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Reply to: