Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging practices"
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Adam" == Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> writes:
Adam> We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
Adam> have time. We implement those that are interesting to us when
Adam> we have free time. I don't think either one of us would feel
Adam> comfortable being led by another group.
>> Strawman. The policy group shall never propose additions to
>> dpkg functionality, the way the section shalll be formulated. What
>> shall be in the section is what the maintainers _must_ have in order
>> for their packages to be built.
Anthony> That statement's a bit ambiguous.
Anthony> The real question is whether maintainers are meant to build
Anthony> using the features of dpkg, or the ones listed in
*Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the i's and cross the t's. A
package should be buildable using the bits mentioned in policy. Any
package may, however, choose to add any extra bits added by dpkg,
(perhaps buigld depending on a new dpjg version if the change is not
compatible with older versions).
Anthony> debian-policy. The former makes sense and works; the latter
Anthony> means that any new features in dpkg have to go through the
Anthony> hurdle of debian-policy for no good reason.
No, it does not, unless we are being stupid.
{arguments to ossify the status quo deleted]
manoj
--
Being a miner, as soon as you're too old and tired and sick and
stupid to do your job properly, you have to go, where the very
opposite applies with the judges. Beyond the Fringe
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: