On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:35:52 +0200, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Does that not mandate a a far more stringent template on >> ./debian/rules (no yada, no cdbs, select one of quilt/dpatch) and >> maintainer scripts (no Perl)? > IMHO, this is a second-order question that might be specified *if* > we go that route; let us avoid opening too many sub-discussion if > we want this one to conclude anything. Actually, the devil lies in the details. There is no point in making a large blue sky decision if one of the alternatives is infeasible. Ad there is no point brushing uncomfortable questions under the rug like this -- that is too much like making a decision under false pretenses. So, unless we can come up with a technical mechanism of preserving the current diversity of packaging and yet getting the ability to make cross-package modifications, it is a waste of time agreeing that it would be a nice thing to do. I suspect the solution space, and the costs involved, would vary greatly; based on whether or not more stringent requirements are to be laid on packages. manoj -- Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]