On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 01:22:03PM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote: > On 5/4/07, Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:42:40PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > >> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:34:27AM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote: > > > >[heavy snippage dude] > >> > > >> > You mentioned debian commitment to FSF and its social contract, as > >> > very good reasons by themselves to run debian. I totally agree. > >> > However debian is not the only distro with such commitment. Actually > >> > sourceMage picked debian social contract and modified it a bit... > >> snip... > >> > >> I understand Greg's comments to be about Debian's commitment to > >> enforcing a packaging policy, i.e. a policy on where and how things > >> are installed. To me is quite a different thing than a social > >> policy. In Debian, if the install scripts of a package to not put > >> things where the policy says they should be _that_ is a bug in the > >> package. It may also be considered a bug in some other distro.s. I've > >> not kept track of this sort of policy issue in any other distro. since > >> I discovered Debian. > >> > >> The Social Policy is also good. But I think it is easy to feel good > >> about a Social Policy, and it is hard work to implement a packaging > >> policy. > > > > > >I think that the packaging policy is what really sets debian > >apart. THat's why everything "just works"... because dev's can count > >on things being a certain way and if its not, they can count on it > >being fixed. > > Hmm, OK, we're changing the original topic now, but it's OK. I didn't > want to comment more, but I think there's a confusion here. On a > binary distribution you required a packaging policy, since you have > different package developers, and in order to keep a coherent > functional and robust system (dependencies, etc), you need to enforce > a packaging policy. Debian packaging policy has demonstrated to me by > far to be the best (personal opinion here), and not now, almost from > the very beginning. > > However on a source based distribution, there's no different package > developers, the admin of the system is the developer at the same time, > and he/she is the one deciding what to compile against (libraries, > dependencies whether strict or optional, etc). Furthermore, > sourceMage, and probably other source based distros also have their > own packaging policies. In sourceMage for example the "spells", > include a section for dependencies, just like in debian, and the > required dependencies by upstream are included there. Beyond that > there are 2 release branches, one stable, and the other testing, plus > a development environment. Nothing goes to "stable" if the testing > community is not satisfied about it.
are there not rules for "make install" that determine where things go? and what about standardization of config files and their locations? I think that a lot of the policy can be applied to source distributions just like a binary one. Its, of course, fairly easy as the end user to change things in a source based distro A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
