Re: development package in devel?
David Schmitt <email@example.com> writes:
> As a non-DD I'd say that that is not a question of policy, but of
> quality of implementation: There are tools which rely on the section of
> a package to reason about them (deborphan for example).
> So unless you have a good reason for putting that package into sound,
> why not just do the thing everyone else does too?
It would be very nice to document those "things everyone else does." My
experience when first starting to package things is that many of those
conventions aren't documented anywhere and there are occasional packages
in the archive that get it wrong so you can get unlucky in the examples
you choose to look at.
I'm not sure if policy is the right place to put that documentation,
although I don't think it's a bad place. Certainly for the stuff that the
ftpmasters override, it seems like in practice it's a requirement and if
it were documented in policy, more people would get it right in advance.
Alternately, maybe it's something to go into that archive tools
documentation that's been discussed from time to time (along with such
things as the definition of Uploaders).
If there is some good documentation of archive sections that I've
overlooked, please do let me know.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>