Home
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PROPOSED] Explicitly making the Packaging Manual a Policy Document
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 09 Jan 1999 11:53:04 -0600
In-Reply-To: Robert Woodcock's message of 9 Jan 1999 16:50:47 -
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:00:07AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Indeed. I've started writing a dpkg reference manual that will replace
the packaging manual. It's going to be a completely new document though
that includes the info from the packaging manual, and until I have that
reasonably
Hello Manoj and all!
Firstly, well done on incorporating the packaging-policy stuff into
policy. Great work!
But now we have a little problem: there is this orphaned package:
packaging-manual, which appears to no longer be generated from any
binary package. So should we now hand it over to the
Julian == Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian But now we have a little problem: there is this orphaned package:
Julian packaging-manual, which appears to no longer be generated from any
Julian binary package. So should we now hand it over to the dpkg team, and
Julian upload a
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I had already talked to Wichert about this before uploading
the policy with packaging aspects subsumed, and he took over the
packaging manuals dpkg documentation role. (Correct me I I
mis remember, Wichert).
Correct.
So I suspect that the
I tend to disagree this needs to be in policy.
This should be in policy - it causes no end of problems for people doing
binary only recompilations on other archs.
I'm not saying it's not important! I just feel that having to delete that
file every time is a technical point of trivia that
that this has any business being in policy.
I think, then, there are a few things that should be moved
from the packaging to the policy manual. I would specifically point
to chapter 5, on version numbering; that has gone beyond merely being
what dpkg expects, and should be in policy proper
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think, then, there are a few things that should be moved
from the packaging to the policy manual.
Agreed. But I think we should not rush this, and should go through the
normal amendment process for these, with the only difference being we
already have the text
Julian Gilbey wrote:
Reading bug #31645, it seems clear that the Packaging Manual was
accepted as policy, although Joey had reservations.
Should I go ahead and make the modifications Manoj proposed?
I continue to disagree that this has any business being in policy.
--
see shy jo
Julian Gilbey wrote:
Reading bug #31645, it seems clear that the Packaging Manual was
accepted as policy, although Joey had reservations.
Should I go ahead and make the modifications Manoj proposed?
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 09:42:54PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
I continue to disagree that
Reading bug #31645, it seems clear that the Packaging Manual was
accepted as policy, although Joey had reservations.
Should I go ahead and make the modifications Manoj proposed?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of
seconded.
David Frey
the weight
of policy.
In light of this, I am inclined to agree with Manoj that the packaging
manual is policy, although I ask Manoj to use a question next time he
wants a group of people to state whether they agree or disagree with
something.
Robert Someone needs to go over it with a fine-toothed comb
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Too late. The packaging manual is already policy. We already
have been thorugh this. The only forum that can decide what
constitutes Debian policy is the Technical committee, and the policy
mailing list. The policy mailing list came to the conclusion
Hi,
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey I read all these. Most were sidetracked into the question of
Joey the Developer's Reference. The only one I could find that
Joey mentioned the Packaging manual was the last one, which did say,
On the other hand, the Packaging manual seems
Hi,
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This act by itself I do not have any problem with. I would not complain if
the two documents were in the same package. However, pretending the
Packaging Manual is policy is a bad idea. It was a reference guide
previously.
Joey I agree
Hi,
Iff we agree that the packaging manual has the weight of
Policy, I propose, as a purely packaging issue, to pull the two
packages (not the documents -- the policy and the packaging manuals
shall remain distinct documents). The policy manual package already
contains the FSSTND
will not want to read
a legal document; they want a howto-get-it-done-NOW-or-YESTERDAY :)
Manoj: OfCourse, if your proposal doesn't affect the content of the doc, then
all might be well.
If the packaging manual carries policy weight, then is it too heavy for such
a situation?
-Jim
in the same package. However, pretending the
Packaging Manual is policy is a bad idea. It was a reference guide
previously.
Tread carefully here - you entered into this conversation by rewriting
history and are now severely underestimating the consequences of your
actions.
If you wish to turn the Policy
19 matches
Mail list logo
