On Fri, Jul 31 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> We do not want to have different helper package start inventing
>> a helper specific way of building ddebs, with no clear standard tha
>> they are following.
>
>> While archive coverage is nice, ensuring that a ddeb is
>> properly defined, and that all the different ways of creating ddebs are
>> consistent, should happen first.
>
> OK, so you mean I should document the ddeb format (which is that of
> .deb packages) and possibly include it in policy? That makes sense, if
> you want that I'll propose a patch for policy (note that udebs are not
> documented though).
But regular packages are not creating udebs; and the whole idea
behind "automated" ddeb creation is that the ./debian/rules file
optionally creates ddebs. Since this affects the majority of packages,
I think we need to be clear up front about ddeb creation.
manoj
--
A 'full' life in my experience is usually full only of other people's
demands.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
