On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:42:42PM -0400, Brian S. Julin wrote:
>
>
> OK, well, we've both had our say, and from the looks of things,
> I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this ever, so let us leave
> the decision up to the others?
>
> Others? any Comments?
>
> --
> Brian
>
I'll bite,
I've checked with the local busybox maintainer who
is both the upstream and debian maintainer for busybox.
It was his opinion that each open source package
should ideally provide (within the project source
directory) a "project.spec" file and a "debian/"
directory containing the various control files etc.
Thus
libgii/
libgii/libgii.spec
libgii/debian/
libgii/debian/Changes
and so on
If the debian maintainer wants to provide the needed directory
that is great (if not we can merge them ourselves from the
previous debian source.) We seem to have a willing
rpm maintainer already and from what I have seen, I think
he is right to say that the spec file he places here
is a template that can be used by the various rpm distros.
(Having Redhat, Suse, and Caldera specific versions in our
tree is a bad idea as far as I am concerned. In case you
are wondering, yes I've had to deal with fixing rpms from
each of these distros to use in a more generic way and
I could not believe the wierd code some spec files include.)
If the current debian maintainer is not interested in continueing
in that roll perhap I can become an approved deb developer and
take over. I'd be happy to use the ggi cvs for the official
deb packaging items.
I think that is our build system handles packaging
SRPMs and source debs that the typical user can
use the package to create the binary package and install
it. I say this because even though we could make
binary packages, unless you prebuild all the libs
and includes into a staging directory for a given
target system, you may get problem executables.
Regards,
Curtis
