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

Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging practices"



On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:45:33AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>  >> *Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the i's and cross the t's. A
>  >> package should be buildable using the bits mentioned in policy. Any
>  >> package may, however, choose to add any extra bits added by dpkg,
>  >> (perhaps buigld depending on a new dpjg version if the change is not
>  >> compatible with older versions).
>  Anthony> This, uh, doesn't make sense.
> 	Really?

Yes, really.

>  Anthony> 	"A package should be buildable using nothing more than
>  Anthony> 	 [foo]. Unless it chooses not to be."
>  Anthony> ...seems to be what you just said. 
> 	Umm. I fail to see how else I can define sufficient, and
>  optional, new, added features.  Policy defines the minimal,
>  sufficient interface.

Sufficient for what? Certainly not sufficient to build all Debian
packages, since they can use the "optional, new, added features" that
aren't included.

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: pgp5427onRCcc.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: