On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
> When a packager follows a pseudo-"Method 2" approach, using a home-grown
> script not based on generic-build-script, how closely must the naming and
> behaviour of the script follow the official template?
I don't think there is a particular set of requirements on this, but at
the very least, when extracted by setup.exe to /usr/src, the script should
not produce a name conflict with either other source packages or, more
importantly, previous versions of the sources for the same package, which
leaves very little room for variation in naming.
> What degree of automation is required in terms of setup?
> Do we require that the included script be capable of rebuilding the
> packages entirely by itself, or is it permissible to require manual tar,
> patch, etc., commands first?
Behavior-wise, the script should, IMO, at the very least provide a way of
creating a patched source directory. I don't think having full automation
is (or should be) a requirement. As long as the package README is clear
on what steps are needed, it's ok to require manual steps towards the
build.
Again, I don't set the policy for these things, so the above is just my
opinion.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
