The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guidelines docs on ftp.debian.org.



On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Nikhil Nair wrote:

> What we haven't heard, I think, is some really convincing reasons why 
> making this field compulsory is necessary.  So can we stop arguing, and 
> start discussing, please? ...

I'll start the ball rolling with an example and some questions.

    foo-12-1.23a.ppc.deb

  Is this an i386 package named foo-12, version 1.23a.ppc?
  Is it a power-pc package named foo-12, version 1.23a?
  How did you decide?  How should an automated distribution
  maintenance script decide?

On the other side of the coin, I've seen exactly one objection to
making the debian revision field mandatory (again, that is -- the
revision field started out being mandatory) which cited some reason
which didn't boil down to stylistic preference.  That was when the
non-debian world objected to the '-1' in sysvinit-2.58-1.

I haven't looked at the sysvinit source package, but the '-1' is
usually inserted by debian.rules when it produces files intended
for the debian distribution only.  Offhand I wouldn't expect it to
be too difficult to package sysvinit-2.59.tar.gz for release to the
non-debian world (either with or without the debian-specific
debian.rules, preinst, postinst, and conffiles files, but probably
without them), regardless of the fact that "make -f debian.rules source"
would produce a debian-specific sysvinit-2.59-1.tar.gz source package
(which might be identical to the non-debian sysvinit-2.59.tar.gz
package, or might have some differences such as the addition of the
debian-specific files.

Are there any other objections to a mandatory debian revision
field which don't boil down to stylistic preference?