On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmul.ac.uk> writes:
> Julian> People *used* to make that complaint. And if we now move to having a
> Julian> lean policy standards document and a developers reference and a best
> Julian> programming advice document and a dpkg documentation document, we'll
> Julian> have even more complaints in that direction.
> I beg to differ. The reason people used to complain was there
> was no single place one could go to to get a definitive reference for
> all the things a package maintainer _must_ do in order to achieve
> interoperability and prevent bug reports.
Uh, people complain about lots of things. It doesn't make them right, or
their suggested alternatives correct.
> In the new scheme of things, the policy manual would be the
> place to look at. For further assistance, one could look at the
> developers reference (HOWTO),
The developers-reference describes how to go about uploading new versions
of your own packages or someone else's, how stable, testing, and unstable
work (once someone actually knows, anyway), how the mailing lists work
and so forth.
debian-policy currently describes (or, attempts to, or is intended to)
the way packages should be constructed when those decisions aren't
dictated by the tools.
The packaging-manual used to describe the way the dpkg tools worked. Other
documents (the update-inetd manpage, the stuff in /usr/doc/debconf,
the debhelper manpages, etc) describe how other tools work.
> This is a far cry from the old muddle and multiple locations
> for must do things we had in the past.
I think you overstate the problems that used to exist.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
Attachment:
pgp83O4Ovmt_u.pgp
Description: PGP signature