Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages
- From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:52:36 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20070815125236.GS18712@yellowpig>
- Reply-to: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20070716215718.GA29591@roeckx.be>
- References: <20070618172743.GB3687@yellowpig> <20070625130221.GD23964@mx0.halon.org.uk> <20070625153353.GQ3320@yellowpig> <20070626125958.GM23964@mx0.halon.org.uk> <email@example.com> <20070626223046.GO23964@mx0.halon.org.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070704090125.GA26366@dario.dodds.net> <email@example.com> <20070716215718.GA29591@roeckx.be>
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 <firstname.lastname@example.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.
Imagine a large red swirl here.