Re: packaging policy questions re new standard
Hi,
Yes, as far as I'm concerned we're to use the recommended versioning
scheme with all the advantages of multiple version installed at the
same time you mentioned. Also we're supporting your hybrid setup for
packages where it makes more (practical) sense to do so. Versioning
is fine, but if it becomes a hassle then by all means don't use it.
This I leave to the judgement of the package maintainers. If in the
future it makes us incompatible wit other distro's (and the LSB)
then we can always drop it and allow only versioned directories.
We're only at the beginning of the new setup and I don't mind playing
around with both schemes to see how things work out.
About the upgrades, that' a good question. To be honest I've no idea
whether that's useful. I can imagine that users don't care about what
version they're running as long as it works, but I've no idea that's
what docbook users do as normal practice. This is probably also one
of those things we're to see how it works out.
Hope this make things clearer for you (and others).
Thanks,
Ardo
Mark Johnson (mark@phy.duke.edu) wrote:
> --text follows this line--
> I'll be cranking out a number of docbook xml packages in the next week
> or so and have some questions re implementation of the proposed lsb
> naming scheme. (The docbook-xsl-stylesheets package I made uses only
> current policy.)
>
> 1. Are we going to use the recommended naming scheme for directories
> and packages?
>
> -- versioned directories (or versioned symlinks)?
>
> e.g.
>
> /usr/share/sgml/docbook/
>
> docbook-dtd41-xml/
> docbook-style129-xsl/
>
> -- versioned package names?
>
> e.g
>
> docbook-dtd41-xml_1.0-3_all.deb
> docbook-style129-1.0-1_all.deb
>
>
> I see good reasons for wanting multiple versions of the xsl
> stylesheets installed. For example, V124 works fine with XT and Saxon,
> but V1.29 doesn't work with XT. Users should be able to use XT if they
> like - even if it means using older versions of the stylesheets.
>
> Versioning the directories would eliminate overwrites, and versioning
> the package names would allow multiple versions.
>
> However, I'm not too clear how/if upgrades would work. Would we use a
> "docbook-style-xsl" meta-package that points to the latest version and
> has no conflicts between versions (plus an alternatives entry)?
>
> Lemme know what you think. I'm puzzled.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> BTW, I'm putting my packages under cvs. Instructions for anonymous
> access are readable via the viewcvs interface:
>
> http://ed.phy.duke.edu/cvs/index.cgi/?cvsroot=debian
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: ardo@debian.org
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
Reply to: