Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging practices"
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmul.ac.uk> writes:
Julian> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Refer to a dpkg reference instead and document extra restrictions
Julian> Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
Julian> everything necessary should be in policy. q
Umm, no. It does not make sense to restrict dpkg authors to a
static, slow changing mechanism that is policy as the blueprint for
their software development. The dpkg authors must be free to
innovate, and document additional features, and evolving behaviour.
On the other hand, all packages must not be left to the whimsy
of the dpkg developers either; since potentially large numbers of
packages would be impacted by such changes.
Going to either extreme is suboptimal.
What we need to do is specify a minimal set of interfaces that
all packages are required to provide, and that the dpkg authors must
maintain compatibility for.
Changes to this core functionality would require a transition
plan to effect, but otherwise dpkg authors are free to make changes
and extentions. Most extentions, when the become popular, would be
candidates for inclution into the core interface, when the dpkg
authors feel the interface has stabilized and would be unlikely to
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. Berry
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org