Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
tag 698030 pending thanks Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:11:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes: How about this patch? diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd 100644 --- i/policy.sgml +++ w/policy.sgml @@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ distributed in some other way or is intended for local use only. /p + + p + udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do + not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the + url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more + information about them. + /p /sect sect Seconded. Applied. Thanks everybody ! -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Hi, In January, Russ Allbery wrote: I think we should probably say explicitly that they don't follow all of the requirements laid out in this document. How about this patch? diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd 100644 --- i/policy.sgml +++ w/policy.sgml @@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ distributed in some other way or is intended for local use only. /p + + p + udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do + not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the + url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more + information about them. + /p /sect sect -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:22:08AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : + + p + udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do + not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the + url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more + information about them. + /p Thanks Jonathan for keeping the momentum on this. I would be pedantically pleased if the text mentionned the word micro, because if I am not mistaken, it suggest the answer to the question what does 'u' stand for in 'udeb'. Something like stripped-down 'micro' binary packages ? Have a nice week-end, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Hi, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:22:08AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : + +p + udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do + not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the + url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more + information about them. +/p Thanks Jonathan for keeping the momentum on this. I would be pedantically pleased if the text mentionned the word micro, because if I am not mistaken, it suggest the answer to the question what does 'u' stand for in 'udeb'. Something like stripped-down 'micro' binary packages ? I think that's covered by the link. ;-) I agree that in a more extensive section on udebs the mnemonic would be worth mentioning. Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 02:00:35AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:22:08AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : + + p +udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do +not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the +url name=Debian Installer internals manual +id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more +information about them. + /p Thanks Jonathan for keeping the momentum on this. I would be pedantically pleased if the text mentionned the word micro, because if I am not mistaken, it suggest the answer to the question what does 'u' stand for in 'udeb'. Something like stripped-down 'micro' binary packages ? I think that's covered by the link. ;-) I agree that in a more extensive section on udebs the mnemonic would be worth mentioning. Good point. I second your original patch. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com (09/03/2013): In January, Russ Allbery wrote: I think we should probably say explicitly that they don't follow all of the requirements laid out in this document. How about this patch? diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd 100644 --- i/policy.sgml +++ w/policy.sgml @@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ distributed in some other way or is intended for local use only. /p + + p + udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do + not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the + url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more + information about them. + /p /sect sect Seconded. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes: How about this patch? diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd 100644 --- i/policy.sgml +++ w/policy.sgml @@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ distributed in some other way or is intended for local use only. /p + + p + udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do + not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the + url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more + information about them. + /p /sect sect Seconded. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Charles Plessy wrote: actually the only section of the Policy that currently contains the string 'udeb' is 8.6.4.2 about the shlibs system (plus some occurences in introductory parts earlier in the chapter 8). No bug in our list mention udeb either. I therefore am filing this new bug so that the discussion (started in 697433#67) can be recorded in a separate place. However, as noted by Russ it is a larger effort, and I have no plan to start to work on it in the short term. I don't think policy should define how udebs work. The entire installer is maintained by the d-i team, and it seems best if they have freedom to change how it works without changing any documentation maintained by other bodies. Policy section 8.6.4.2 does not say anything that could be interpreted as meaning udebs are a subset of the packages the policy manual defines. The proposed text in 697433 does. I think a single sentence along the lines that udebs are not defined in this manual and to see http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html for their definition would be enough to fix that. I'm getting the impression I'm the only person that thinks that, though. :( Hoping that clarifies, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:13:04AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : I don't think policy should define how udebs work. The entire installer is maintained by the d-i team, and it seems best if they have freedom to change how it works without changing any documentation maintained by other bodies. Policy section 8.6.4.2 does not say anything that could be interpreted as meaning udebs are a subset of the packages the policy manual defines. The proposed text in 697433 does. I think a single sentence along the lines that udebs are not defined in this manual and to see http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html for their definition would be enough to fix that. I'm getting the impression I'm the only person that thinks that, though. :( Hi Jonathan, I hope that people do not see the Policy as an obstacle for change or a tool to take away freedom from those doing the work. In my point of view, the Policy participates to Debian's attractiveness by providing a unified and synthethic reference on how the system is built and how it functions. I think that describing the udebs would fit with that goal. This said, it can not be done without the active participation of the d-i team, which I do not want to bother now. If you think that it is necessary to obtain the agreement of the d-i team to mention the udebs in #697433, please go ahead, but on my side, I do not think that there is a problem here. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Charles Plessy wrote: If you think that it is necessary to obtain the agreement of the d-i team to mention the udebs in #697433, please go ahead, but on my side, I do not think that there is a problem here. I guess I'm completely failing to communicate. udebs are already documented very clearly. There is _no point_ in policy replicating that. Policy is meant to help multiple people cooperate to make the Debian system work in a consistent way --- adding some docs about udebs would not help that at all. All I said is that the text in #697433 seems to (unintentionally, I hope) imply that packages with Package-type: udeb are an example of the packages that policy defines. I suggested a way to fix that --- just link to the d-i docs. I see no downside to that. Yet I'm getting a lot of resistance to the suggestion. Why? What am I missing? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (13/01/2013): I think that describing the udebs would fit with that goal. For the record: no objection. This said, it can not be done without the active participation of the d-i team, which I do not want to bother now. ACK. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:44:33AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Charles Plessy wrote: If you think that it is necessary to obtain the agreement of the d-i team to mention the udebs in #697433, please go ahead, but on my side, I do not think that there is a problem here. I guess I'm completely failing to communicate. udebs are already documented very clearly. There is _no point_ in policy replicating that. Policy is meant to help multiple people cooperate to make the Debian system work in a consistent way --- adding some docs about udebs would not help that at all. In that case there could be a udeb subpolicy document maintained by the d-i team that policy would refer to. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Bill Allombert wrote: In that case there could be a udeb subpolicy document maintained by the d-i team that policy would refer to. Yeah, that would be fine with me, even though I still don't see the point. Is there a git subpolicy describing how git is packaged? A gnome subpolicy about gnome packaging? The only difference for udebs is that the work is spread over packages throughout the system. They are still maintained by the d-i team. Anyway, I'm not too concerned about that question. What I am concerned about is that the next release of policy should not include wording that requires people to make a decision between ignoring what policy says and filing RC bugs about, e.g., udebs not including changelogs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:35:36AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Bill Allombert wrote: In that case there could be a udeb subpolicy document maintained by the d-i team that policy would refer to. Yeah, that would be fine with me, even though I still don't see the point. Is there a git subpolicy describing how git is packaged? A gnome subpolicy about gnome packaging? Used to, at least: /usr/share/doc/gnome-pkg-tools/gnome-policy.html The only difference for udebs is that the work is spread over packages throughout the system. They are still maintained by the d-i team. Various subpolicies already exist for this kind of situation. http://www.debian.org/devel/ lists 13 of them but there are more actually. Not all of them are in the policy package, but I did not require that. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes: Yet I'm getting a lot of resistance to the suggestion. Why? What am I missing? I think it's perfectly reasonble, even quite valuable, to include a clear statement in Policy that it doesn't cover udebs and they have their own guidelines. I didn't realize there was a manual that documents them (well, sort of; having looked at it, it doesn't really provide enough information to make one). It would clearly be useful to link to that. I don't think it's a good idea to bury that statement deep in the section about control fields, in the description of an obscure field that (since it is automatically generated by packaging software) most people are unlikely to ever bother to read. Rather, I think we should make that statement up-front, probably in section 1.1 where Policy already discusses its scope. It makes sense to me to add such a statement now and then circle back to possibly document the details of udebs (and, if so, remove that statement) at a later date when the d-i team has more time. I certainly have no objections to getting that statement into Policy now so that we don't release a new version with an additional mention of udebs without having that statement. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org (13/01/2013): It makes sense to me to add such a statement now and then circle back to possibly document the details of udebs (and, if so, remove that statement) at a later date when the d-i team has more time. Definitely. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:35:36AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : What I am concerned about is that the next release of policy should not include wording that requires people to make a decision between ignoring what policy says and filing RC bugs about, e.g., udebs not including changelogs. Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:15:59AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : I think it's perfectly reasonble, even quite valuable, to include a clear statement in Policy that it doesn't cover udebs and they have their own guidelines. I didn't realize there was a manual that documents them (well, sort of; having looked at it, it doesn't really provide enough information to make one). It would clearly be useful to link to that. How about the following change to the first paragraph of section 1.1 ? This manual describes the policy requirements for the Debian distribution. This includes the structure and contents of the Debian archive and several design issues of the operating system, as well as technical requirements that - each package must satisfy to be included in the - distribution. + each source and binary package must satisfy to be included in the + distribution. Micro binary packages, described in more details + in the the url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html;, + are not fully covered in this manual. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: How about the following change to the first paragraph of section 1.1 ? This manual describes the policy requirements for the Debian distribution. This includes the structure and contents of the Debian archive and several design issues of the operating system, as well as technical requirements that - each package must satisfy to be included in the - distribution. + each source and binary package must satisfy to be included in the + distribution. Micro binary packages, described in more details + in the the url name=Debian Installer internals manual + id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html;, + are not fully covered in this manual. I think we should probably say explicitly that they don't follow all of the requirements laid out in this document. I vote for just calling them udebs instead of micro binary packages. The latter sounds more formal, but I don't think anyone calls them that in practice, so it may be confusing. Perhaps: udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) are not fully covered in this manual and do not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the url name=Debian Installer internals manual id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more information about them. ? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:35:36AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Bill Allombert wrote: In that case there could be a udeb subpolicy document maintained by the d-i team that policy would refer to. Yeah, that would be fine with me, even though I still don't see the point. Is there a git subpolicy describing how git is packaged? A gnome subpolicy about gnome packaging? The only difference for udebs is that the work is spread over packages throughout the system. They are still maintained by the d-i team. That's not accurate at all. The installer team are consulted on the question of which packages should be made available as udebs, but for shared libraries the maintenance of the udeb definitely lies with the library maintainer, not the installer team. So it makes perfect sense to me that we would want the requirements for udebs documented centrally where all maintainers can refer to them. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Russ Allbery wrote: I vote for just calling them udebs instead of micro binary packages. The latter sounds more formal, but I don't think anyone calls them that in practice, so it may be confusing. Perhaps: udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) are not fully covered in this manual and do not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the url name=Debian Installer internals manual id=http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ch03.html; for more information about them. Sounds perfect to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Steve Langasek wrote: The installer team are consulted on the question of which packages should be made available as udebs, but for shared libraries the maintenance of the udeb definitely lies with the library maintainer, not the installer team. So it makes perfect sense to me that we would want the requirements for udebs documented centrally where all maintainers can refer to them. No disagreement here. Even better, if udebs were documented in more detail, it would make it easier for package maintainers to deal with day-to-day maintenance without having to talk to the d-i team directly as much. If someone writes a udeb policy, that will be an excellent contribution. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for the confusion. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698030: debian-policy: document micro binary packages (udebs).
Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Le Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:27:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : We already talk about udeb in various places (shlibs, for instance). This isn't a new problem. Hi Russ and everybody, actually the only section of the Policy that currently contains the string 'udeb' is 8.6.4.2 about the shlibs system (plus some occurences in introductory parts earlier in the chapter 8). No bug in our list mention udeb either. I therefore am filing this new bug so that the discussion (started in 697433#67) can be recorded in a separate place. However, as noted by Russ it is a larger effort, and I have no plan to start to work on it in the short term. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
