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

Re: install daemon without starting it

On Tue,07.Apr.09, 13:24:39, Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> >  
> > Auto generated from what? 
>  From whatever contains any structured information to be read and added to
> README.Debian files if they remain partly non-structured as they currently
> are.
> The package contents can be obtained with dpkg.
> That lists only the uninterpreted, raw list of files.
> It doesn't distinguish between entry points vs. other artifacts, say:
> - commands meant for the user to execute vs. helper executables
> - root info files (command.gz) vs. associated ones (command1.gz, command2.gz)
> - commands meant for the user to run vs. daemons started automatically

I'm not sure duplicating information that can be obtained otherwise is a 
good use of README.Debian

> >>  > Ok, many of them could be improved, ...
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> First we'd need a standard or some guidelines about what should be in there.
> > 
> > It would be quite difficult to write a guideline that would fit for both 
> > samba and mpd. 
> What kind of guidelines are you thinking about?

My point was that it would be difficult to write one guideline to fit 

> I'm thinking of things like:
>    Include a "Daemons started:" line listing any daemon(s) started by
>    installing the package.
> How would something like that not fit virtually every package?

Because 95% (or more?) of the packages would have

Daemons started: none

Do you know about debtags? It's work in progress AFAIK, but it would 
address some of your points.

> (Yes, guidelines for pointers to documentation _might_ be a little harder to
> make fit all packages, since some have mostly just a manual page, some have
> many manual/info/etc. pages, and some packages are just documentation for
> something else.)
>  > Rather file bugs (preferably with suggested wording or
> > even a patch) where you think it's necessary. 
> Oh, come on.  Wait for each instance of the problem instance of trying to
> work out a system (e.g., guidelines/standards) to avoid the problem in the
> first place?
>  > I usually find enough information in there to know were to look further.
> The user shouldn't have to dig for some of this information, especially
> not in different forms in different packages.

Quite true, but what would be a good canonical place to put it? I think, 
since all this is package related, the package manager should be that 
agregator of information. For example aptitude can already display 
debtags and 'changelog.Debian'. Maybe you could file a whishlist bug to 
also display the README.Debian?

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: