Re: it is almost mini-freeze time ...
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 11:01:42PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant) writes:
>
>
> > My God. Yet another policy madness in order to make maintainers
> > crazy again. Why don't you want to leave us alone? We don't need
> > more and more restrictions on the way we package apps.
> >
> > You seem to come every month with more annoyance to put in the
> > policy ....
>
> Mainly, I'd like to see in the policy more recommendations than
> mandatory points.
> For instance, the byte/native way of packaging should be recommended
> but custom bytecode should be possible. People decide.
That is what i propose to do, there will be pure bytecode (as ledit) and
bytecode/nativecode (as spamoracle) and custom bytecode (as advi). I
would not recomend to use custom bytecode for anything, except when
there are C bindings embeded in the executable though.
As for the library thing, we can do two thing, either have a libfoo
(>>1.2.3) or embed the version number in the library package name. It is
ok with me that each developper will decide for himself which ones will
be best for him, altough i think the later one is best, and is also what
is being down for C shared libs, but again, i plan to word it so both
ways can be done.
Again, it is just writing what we have been discussing these last weeks,
since the current policy is from late december/november, before we had
problems with the autobuilders.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: