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

Re: DEP-4: TDeb specification

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:41:43 +0000
Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

(Please keep me CC'd, I'm not subscribed to project.)

> Neil Williams writes ("Re: DEP-4: TDeb specification"):
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:17:41 +0000
> > Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > > This is all very well but err, are we supposed to review this or
> > > what ?  I don't think your automatic mail containing only metadata is
> > > really useful to prompt a discussion.

Now fixed. Should I include the entire specification in an email or is
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep4/ sufficient?

> Ok, well, I'll wait for the machinery to be sorted out and then we can
> talk about the actual proposal.

There was actually remarkably little discussion on -devel and I'd
already raised TDebs on -dpkg some time ago, so it's time to come back

The main thing is that discussion of the proposal also needs to be done
in stages - accepting that the ultimate goal and methodology have to be
verified but that the implementation and details surrounding it only
need agreement after Squeeze (and in some cases, after Squeeze+1).

The main issue for now is consensus on the overall aims, agreement on
the changes for dpkg so that the version of dpkg in Squeeze is able to
unpack .tdeb packages and handle the debconf templates therein and
consensus on the changes to apt to ensure that the TDeb is downloaded
alongside the package to allow apt-extracttemplates to find the
translated templates file for display to the user. These changes need
to be in the respective packages in the stable release before TDebs are
actually created. I'm hoping that this will mean the changes in apt and
dpkg being made in Squeeze, first TDebs in Squeeze+1 (debconf only,
probably) and only dealing with issues around TDebs for gettext and
non-gettext program translations in Squeeze+2.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpa7pfPBOu11.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: