On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 20:56 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > As you could see in my message, I did ask Joerg again, but with no reply > > for a week, so nobody but Joerg knows what I did or didn't convince him > > of. > Well, I'm not Joerg, but based on the evidence of rejects/accepts and my > understanding of policy and actual practices, it is my understanding that > - the meta packages probably are the main rejection cause, > - parallel installability of -dev-Packages is not an issue Debian cares > about except for the most popular packages, > - (this doesn't directly relate to the rejection, but nonetheless) the > use of the alternatives system is probably a bad idea because it > leads to unexpected compilation results (essentially many developers > considere it a bug for a package build to produce substantially > different builds when run on arbitrarily chosen current unstable > systems), > - versioned -dev package naming is not Joerg's preference, but when I > asked him about a rejection of libfoo12-dev and pointed out Junichi's > libpkg-guide recommendation he said he wouldn't reject for this in > the future.
This is good to know, thanks very much for the clarifications. It's unfortunate that Debian doesn't care about parallel installability of -dev packages, given how many user communities could likely benefit (PETSc's was started at the request of several users). > P.S.: Should we move elsewhere from -release? Sure, Joerg and I are discussing this. Seemed like the appropriate place to ask when I hadn't heard any clarification in over a week. Thanks again, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
