On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:48:44 -0500, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> However, the real purpose for this message is to establish a policy
> for the future.
Thanks for bringing this up and driving it further.
I have no strong opinions here, but I see the point of treating
more-app-than-lib packages differently. What I'd like to have is a
clear and simple policy so I know what I have to do :)
Looking at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPerlGroup/OpenTasks/Applications
it seems the rules could be:
1) For packages providing libs and scripts:
- source package libfoo-perl
- binary package libfoo-perl
provides: foo
(or optional: additional binary package foo)
for well-known/important/... tools
2) For applications (App::Foo):
- source package foo
- binary package foo
- (optional: binary package libfoo/something-perl if there are
libs that can be reused)
Am I reading this correctly?
If yes, I'm ok with it, and hope that others are quicker to share
their opinions than I was :)
And then someone would have to propose a good wording and a patch for
website/policy.pod.
(And maybe Debian Perl Policy 4.2, unless we don't to go that way is
1) above doesn't change anything and 2) maybe doesn't apply?)
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Pink Floyd: Welcome To The Machine
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature