On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 06:16:58PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> "Pure data" packages are a problem because:
> 2) There is NO packaging needed. It's just a tar ball.
Well, it has to be arranged according to policy (ie, /usr/share/doc/foo,
instead of just ./foo), and running things like install-docs or
install-menu could be useful.
> 3) Where do we stop ? As someone says, there's nothing preventing
> me from uploading as debian package every single .wav or .mov
> file on the Internet just because it's useful.
But OTOH, it *is* useful, and it'd be nice to have it integrated into
the distribution rather than just thrown in /usr/local or ~ or somewhere.
E and Gnome themes strike me as one good example here.
> This is what I believe are acceptable "pure data" packages:
> 5) Linux-specific or debian-specific data (HOWTOs, FAQs,
> debian-user-guide).
ie, "documentation" ? What of things like Linux Gazette? Or, say, a
collection of old issues of lwn or slashdot? Or a collection of old
bug reports against Debian packages?
I'd be inclined to leave all of them in a data section.
> Examples of data packages which does NOT belong to debian (IMHO):
> 2) Any kind of text easily findable on the web (RFCs (even though I
> love to have RFCs around, but we have a draw a line))
The whole point being that with a data/ section, you can just add an
Apt line, or buy a "Debian + Data" CD set, and still have them lying
around.
> Pros of this policy:
> 2) Avoids controversial materials (politics and religious texts)
Like bitchx, or SATAN, or nmap, or devfs? :)
> Of course, with some common sense we would have avoided this
> discussion.
Common sense is ever so much more common in the past tense.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgp0mZ63ils0V.pgp
Description: PGP signature