Re: overhaul of the debian ocaml policy
Hello,
On 23-08-2010, Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 03:07:02PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> On 22-08-2010, Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> > What is the reason to mandate a special field or comment in the META
>> > field when it is created by debian? We are patching sources all the time
>> > both for end user applications and develpment packages, without attaching
>> > an extra warning sign. What makes META files so special that warrants
>> > an exception to that rule?
>> >
>>
>> Whenever you patch the source, IMHO, you limit the patch to:
>> - fix the build system to make it compile on Debian (source -> binary
>> package, new OCaml version)
>> - fix security bugs
>
> Certainly not. We do add features (I am speaking here of debian packages
> in general, not only of ocaml libraries), and we fix things that are
> broken.
>
Could you be more precise about the features we add. I don't have
examples in mind. I don't consider that FHS compliance is a feature for
example but I don't see any commmon case where Debian packagers add a
new function to a library.
At the beginning, I was adding wrapper scripts to mldonkey
(create/delete users, set password) and I had been criticized for this
because I was adding too advanced features...
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: