On Wednesday 28 May 2008 08:32:22 Eero Tamminen wrote: > A draft version of the "maemo packaging policy" is available > for commenting: > https://maemo.org/forrest-images/pdf/maemo-policy.pdf
Let me start by saying thanks for a useful and well-written document. I am not quite sure about the name: personally I am not convinced that we need a strict "policy" for Maemo packages. I completely agree we need guidelines but Maemo is a small (really, tiny) distribution, both in terms of users and, more importantly for this discussion, developers. Our most critical problem at the moment is the lack of ported software, not the quality of the packages which have been ported. If anything, the number of active developers in the Maemo community seems to be declining (for example, I was amazed by the almost zero response to the autobuilder announcement). I would be very firmly against any attempt to "enforce" a policy (for example, by preventing packages appearing in Extras if they violate the policy). But, I realise that that is a separate discussion. My comments below do assume that this is an advisory policy (or "guidelines" as I would prefer to call it). 2.2: The list of user sections should not be in this document. It should be on a Wiki page which can be maintained separately from the document. 3.2: This section needs to be clearer about the circumstances which cause the "maemo" version string to be required. If a Debian package is taken and the only changes are to the debian/control file (e.g. Section: changed to conform to 2.2, dependencies changed to reflect maemo environment differences, maintainer changed, etc.) then I would have thought it should retain the debian version number. On the other hand, if a source or build change occurs (for example, a feature which is enabled in the Debian version is disabled in the maemo version because it makes no sense in that environment, or is dependent on something which has not been ported) then the maemo revision should be used. Other changes may be less clear (for example, if the documentation has been removed as per 3.9.4). 3.9: I don't really see the point in saying packaging changes SHOULD be propagated back to upstream. No Debian maintainer is going to change any of their packaging for the benefit of Maemo! Are you really suggesting people should report bugs on a maemo package because the upstream maintainer chooses to package it differently?! 3.9.4. Remove the line about generating API documentation from sources. While I agree that is good software engineering practice, it is not a packaging issue and doesn't belong in this document. 3.9.5. I agree with this section as currently written. It must not become MUST as it is really only critical for general purpose libraries and general purpose plugin based applications. Some applications may use libraries and plugins which are only for the convenience of the application developers and are not, realistically, ever going to be used by anyone else -- in those cases SHOULD would be correct. 10.4: I would change the backup SHOULD to a MUST. 11.1: You might want to add a TODO to consider adding additional future requirements on security for daemons which provide network accessible services. As this device is designed for almost continuous network connectivity, often in insecure environments, with no firewall on the device or between it and the Internet network security requirements may be stronger than for a normal Debian system. Graham _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
