Bug#38902: PROPOSED] data section
Quoting Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu>:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 09:27:57AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > What kind of packages are we thinking of for data?
> >=20
> > Web mirrors?
> > anarchism - An exhaustive exploration of Anarchist theory and practice.
> > gimp-manual - Manual for the GNU Image Manipulation Program
> > gnu-philosophy - Philosophy of the GNU Project
> > jargon-html - The definitive compendium of hacker slang.
> >=20
> > Funny manpages?
> > asr-manpages - alt.sysadmin.recovery manual pages
> > funny-manpages - more funny manpages
> >=20
> > Magazine back issues?
> > heise-register - register of the magazines c't, iX, Elrad and Gateway
> > lg-base - Shared files for the Linux Gazette.
> > lg-issue01to08 - Issues 1 to 8 of the Linux Gazette.
> > lg-issue* - Issue * of the Linux Gazette.
> > pj-* - * * number of Pluto Journal.
> >=20
> > Technical documents?
> > bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
> > doc-rfc - Important RFCs
> >=20
> > Dictionaries?
> > dict-easton - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
> > dict-elements - Data regarding the Elements
> > dict-foldoc - FOLDOC Dictionary Database
> > dict-gazetteer - U.S. Gazetteer
> > dict-hitchcock - Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary
> > dict-jargon - Jargon File 4.0.0
> > dict-wn - WordNet v1.6
> > dict-web1913 - 1913 Webster's Dictionary
> > miscfiles - Dictionaries and other interesting files.
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing all of these move into the data section.
>
> There's no point having a data section if we're not going to be consistent
> about how we use it, and if we're not going to try very, very hard to keep
> our criteria objective (i.e., no arguments like "the Jargon file can stay
> but the Bible has to go").
>
> I don't really regard bible-kjv-text as a technical document, but... :)
Remember one thing, in the proposal, the maintainer as some right to do it.
I don't want to see arbitrary decision about this. data is not like
non-free. We don't have any clear guideline to decide either one package
should go or not in data except for the depends part (which is technical).
That's why the proposal refers to the section models. The proposal is not
even accept already, we better to discussed if we keep the same sections
or not. That's a more important thing. After that, people can feel bugs
against ftp.debian.org to move their packages in data if it seems right
to them. I'm pretty sure things will go smoothly and I think, IMVHO,
that we dont need "consistent way" (I look at it like "formal") to use
it, just like we don't have one for sections. Hope I interpret it
correctly.
>
> If I understood the proposal correctly, bible-kjv and verse would both go
> into the new data section. "verse" because it's designed to work only with
> only one data file -- bible-kjv.
That's a good example of if a software package can go or not in data.
IMHO, removing it from main will just remove choice seens main should
contain ALL the functionalities of Debian (either people think there are
or not functionnalities in verse), and data just add to it with options.
The frontier is really blur here, contrary to the legal assumptions of main
(DFSG rules), and just like the way sections are provided. Please, let it
be on a per packages basis, just like the section thing.
>
> --=20
> G. Branden Robinson | A celibate clergy is an especially
> good
> Debian GNU/Linux | idea, because it tends to suppress any
> branden@ecn.purdue.edu | hereditary propensity toward
> fanaticis=
> m.
> cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Carl Sagan
>
Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles Chevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers
aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Debian GNU/Linux maintainer
E-mail: fab@tzone.org
WebPage: http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: