On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 05:20, Charles Wilson wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > > In the "Package file naming" section: > "In the event that a package doesn't sort correctly (for example, from > ...-9-... to ...-10-..., use the setup.hint current, prev and exp labels to > override the inbuilt sort during the transition period." > > I think setup.hint's are more-or-less required, now. Otherwise, there's no > way to set the sdesc, ldesc, dependencies, etc. So, the "auto-sort" is a > soon-to-be-vestigial feature; emphasis should be on setup.hint.
Yes, but. We don't have any way to ecapsulate setup.hint and the related file. So for now I think we have to maintain this feature. > Ditto in the "setup.hint" section: > "If the above rules don't work for your package, for some reason, ..." > > setup.hint should be the "normal" method, not the fallback method I didn't touch the existing doco last night. I'll have a quick look at this later today. > "The requires line indicates the packages that this package relys on. A > package can rely on multiple packages. Multiple packages are separated by > spaces." > + "Do not enclose multiple package names within quotation marks." Thanks, added. > In section "Making packages" > "In your binary package include a file /usr/doc/foo-vendor that includes > any binary-relevant vendor documentation, such as ChangeLog's, copyright > licence's, README's etc." > > ...include a directory /usr/doc/foo-vendor... > > "Include a single file foo-vendor-suffix.patch in your source package, that > when applied will remove all the patches you've applied to the package, > leaving it as the vendor distributes it. This file should extract as > /usr/src/foo-vendor-suffix.patch." > > This is NEW. What if you have multiple patches (some cygwin-specific, > others "standard patches")? See tiff src package -- CYGWIN-PATCHES > contains the lossless-jpeg "standard" patch, plus a cygwin-specific patch. > Or "old-style" ncurses (and current readline) package: there's the > "regular" pre-applied cygwin-specific patch, and then a second > "dll-ization" patch applied at a particular point during the build process. > > There are some problems with the "/usr/src/foo-vendor-suffix.patch" idea > that are not easily solved. This change should be discussed (new thread?) > prior to unilateral declaration on setup.html... Yup, agree completely. I've got to do some pc maintenance rsn, but I'll start a clean thread with my reasoning for discussion after that. As usual I will abide by consensus. > > "Look in the debian package list" > a link would be good, here. yeah it would wouldn't it :}. Rob