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

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:57:18PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:22:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> > 
> > > Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
> > > avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
> > 
> > How about "duplicated code"?  New patch:

I would like to stress the point that is is better to get a limited
version of this in the policy and then expand it with hindsight than
to try to cover all cases from the start.

> I have 2 comments about this:
> - It was suggested that this shouldn't only cover libraries.  This
>   version still only takes about libraries.

When I wrote this, I meant library in the general sense, not in the
"shared library" sense to cover perl, python, php, ruby, haskell modules
etc. A library being a piece of code set up to be used in a larger
programm rather than on its own.

I find the wording "convenience copy of library from other software
packages" much more telling than "convenience copy of code from other
software packages" that could be misinterpreted. For example,
a lot of packages include a convenience copy of scripts part of automake
(install-sh, depcomp, etc.). The sentence
"Debian packages should not make use of these convenience copies."
seems to imply that they should not be used.

> - Some packages contain a forked version of a library.  Policy should
>   say to try and merge them in the Debian package.  This might
>   not work for all packages since the changes aren't compatible, in
>   which case I see 2 options:
>   - Keep it internal and link staticly
>   - Make a seperate source package of it.
>   It would be nice if policy suggested one of those approaches.  But I'm
>   not really sure this belongs in policy.

This is a non-Debian-specific best practice, so probably does not
belong in policy.

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: