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

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   <srivasta@debian.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 debian-project-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: