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

Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging practices"

On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>  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).

This, uh, doesn't make sense.

	"A package should be buildable using nothing more than
	 [foo]. Unless it chooses not to be."

...seems to be what you just said. 

If you want to say something like "Packages should specify a versioned
build-dependency if they use features from a package that weren't
available in both the last two stable releases", that's fine by me ---
but you don't have to write out a dpkg spec to say that. (If you want to
make sure it works, you could set up a buildd with a two year old chroot,
or similar, and file bug reports with patches when you find problems)

Speccing out dpkg is not what policy is for, and doesn't win us anything.


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: pgpdxAG1qQWmi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: