Is there any reason for this thread to still be on -project? It's entirely
about rewriting debian-policy now, isn't it?
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:32:11PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > So if the dpkg reference doesn't document everything that Debian needs
> > in this respect, what is the best thing to do?
> dpkg allows things that Debian does not. Version numbering for NMUs is
> a good example of a policy that Debian adds on top of what dpkg
> provides.
The use of the "Essential:" keyword is similar (as far as dpkg is
concerned, that keyword just makes it harder to --remove stuff; as far
as policy is concerned it allows you to refrain from listing things in
Depends:), as is the use of "Priority:" and "Section:".
> There will be a reference manual for dpkg that documents only dpkg
> specifics. You are free to copy parts of that into Debian policy,
> but I would rather have them as seperate documents. That means
> people will need to read both, but that might give them a better
> understanding of how Debian is build.
ObShot: Much like, say, people used to have to read both the packaging
manual and policy...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
Attachment:
pgpVLkOhWHoLq.pgp
Description: PGP signature