[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Policy rewrite: chaps 11-13

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:21:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > 11.2, penultimate paragraph reads:
> >      Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries should
> >      include the _.la_ files in the _-dev_ packages, with the
> >      exception that if the package relies on libtool's _libltdl_
> >      library, in which case the .la files must go in the run-time
> >      library package.  >>>This<<< is a good idea in general, and
> >      especially for static linking issues.
> > 
> >      What does the indicated "This" refer to -- that packages should
> >      include the .la files in the -dev or run-time package?
> -dev

Now I'm really confused; policy already says that packages "should"
include .la files in the -dev package; why are we then saying "This is
a good idea in general"?  Perhaps this should be a rationale/footnote?

> > 11.7.5  What does the following mean?
> > 
> >      However, programs that require dotfiles in order to operate
> >      sensibly (dotfiles that they do not create themselves
> >      automatically, that is) are a bad thing, and programs should be
> >      configured by the Debian default installation as close to normal
> >      as possible.
> > 
> >      (It's the last part I don't understand.)
> It should be a seperate sentence, indicating maintainers should put all kinds
> of non-standard stuff in default configuration files.

s/should/should not/, I presume.

> >      If you need a statically allocated id, you must ask for a user or
> >      group id from the base system maintainer, and must not release
> >      the package until you have been allocated one.
> There is no `base system maintainer', that should be the `base-passwd
> maintainer' instead.


> > 12.2 The last para reads:
> > 
> >      If a package wants to install an example entry into
> >      `/etc/inetd.conf', the entry must be preceded with exactly one
> >      hash character (`#').  Such lines are treated as `commented out
> >      by user' by the `update-inetd' script and are not changed or
> >      activated during a package updates.
> > 
> >      This isn't very meaningful as it stands.
> Makes perfect sense to me..

In context, there is no mention of how to install entries into
/etc/inetd.conf at all, and suddenly this paragraph appears.  It
should probably be either removed or placed in some better context.



         Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
       Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

Reply to: