Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging practices"
>>"Adam" == Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> writes:
Adam> We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
Adam> have time. We implement those that are interesting to us when
Adam> we have free time. I don't think either one of us would feel
Adam> comfortable being led by another group.
Strawman. The policy group shall never propose additions to
dpkg functionality, the way the section shalll be formulated. What
shall be in the section is what the maintainers _must_ have in order
for their packages to be built. This is the core interface that dpkg
already presents -- and I am sure you and wiggy have no desire to
yank that from the developers.
Having that in policy serves two purposes -- it is a quick,
minimal reference to the standard interface to packaging tools for
debian developers, and it shall be the common basis that any other
packaging tool apart from dpkg must implement in order to qualify.
There is no intention to have the policy group add
functionality that the dpkg folks then _must_ implement.
From time to time, the dpkg authors could ask for additional
functions to be added to the core set, at your discretion, when you
think it has become a part of the standard interface debian packages
have to the packaging system(s).
manoj
--
I'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: