Re: Getting a package added to the debian package repository: WACS
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 00:09 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> I think the point I was missing here was that the documentation for the
> system is X-rated.
Not exactly. Inappropriate content in screen shots is blacked out, but
the concepts discussed in the text and illustrated in the icons most
definitely are heading that way.
> Perhaps some obscurity helps, and so you might want to write a lintian
> override for that - I guess it would slow my 12 year old down enough
> that he'd get distracted by something else, though I doubt it would stop
> him if he wanted to find it.
Understood. As far as I'm concerned, that's an acceptable outcome.
It's not about hiding that which can be found in an open subversion
repository, but more about discouraging casual curiosity and having at
least considered the option and raised the bar to entry.
> Regardless of whether the content is X-Rated, my personal feeling is
> that protecting it from local users just because they *might* be
> underage is overdoing it.
Generally the norm in our society seems to incline towards the assume
the worst strategy and so I am generally inclined to follow that as the
default, but leave the choice to open it up available to those who want
to change it. The restrictive permissions aren't really a functional
impediment anyway for normal use as it's primarily GUI resources, perl
modules and stylesheets that would be accessed through a web browser
anyway.
> What would be an acceptable compromise, perhaps, would be to install the
> files with normal permissions, but ask a debconf question during the
> installation, offering to apply a more restrictive umask.
I'm a little loathed to do a packaging specific exception here as it
would make it different from the Fedora process (which does not allow
interaction with the package during installation); it would make more
sense to ask those questions in the web-based installer.
> Indeed, it seems like an approach that could be more hassle than it's
> worth.
OK, that's reassuring. I'll go instead for the "don't install the
documentation packages on family computers" advice in the installation
manual then.
> For web applications it's not unusual that man pages aren't present, but
> I assume there are a bunch of command-line tools you're referring to
> here.
The manual pages are basically new at this release (the CLI interface is
also documented in the configuration and user manuals) and I've not
actually yet incorporated them into the packaging control files yet.
Whether they go in the same package as the commands they describe or in
with the documentation packages is totally open at the moment.
> Would it be possible also to split the documentation into two packages,
> so that the NSFW docs weren't included along with the man pages?
At present the docs are two packages, one containing the PDF versions,
the other containing the HTML versions. The manpages are new and have
yet to be allocated to a package.
Cheers
Beaky.
Reply to: