Re: development package in devel?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Schmitt <david@schmitt.edv-bus.at> 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.
Are there lintian/linda checks for these things?
Cheers
Luk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCbpeB5UTeB5t8Mo0RAnEUAJ4iQ34+QV0oC59N+tvKcOF77jAJ3gCfe0pd
tKcfRhyO4UisRI6Ttz1uq7Y=
=yT4F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: