| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Policy-respecting .debs?Policy-respecting .debs?Posted Sep 2, 2008 18:49 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111)In reply to: Policy-respecting .debs? by GreyWizard Parent article: Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld)
No, I'm suggesting that anyone who isn't willing to read the relevant parts of Policy, and fix the relevant lintian errors, should let someone else build the distro-specific packages. Supplying broken packages is NOT contributing. If you want to contribute to the Linux Kernel, then you are expected to understand how the parts work, and to follow the established coding conventions, even if you don't see the point of them. And just to be perfectly clear: I don't think you are a bad person for not wanting to invest the time. Lots of people can (and do) create distro packages. They're good at it. You should spend your time doing whatever it is you want to do, and do it well. Better you fix a bug in your code, or add a feature, than worry about Debian shared library permissions.
(Log in to post comments)
Policy-respecting .debs? Posted Sep 2, 2008 19:45 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Why would I run lintian at all if I thought supplying broken packages was acceptable? I complained about a few specific cases where the policy is arcane because I was explicitly asked to do so above, not because I believe I shouldn't have to follow the established conventions.
I'm touched by your concern for how I spend my time, but arguing against points I haven't actually advanced is probably not a good use of yours.
|
|
||||||||||||