discuss: Re: ldp-author-tools RPM package
Subject:
Re: ldp-author-tools RPM package
From:
Hal Burgiss ####@####.####
Date:
3 Nov 2003 18:31:52 -0000
Message-Id: <20031103183252.GA5481@feenix.burgiss.net>
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:40:17PM +0530, rahul wrote:
> >
> The single rpm isnt really required. If there was a list of rpms or debs
> or whatever listed out clearly authors can just verify the list and make
> sure everything is intact. they can use apt-get or yum to stay updated.
Maybe in theory, but there has been confusion over this topic at least
since I can remember (several years or so). It is confusing because of
linuxdoc vs docbook, and because there are various tools that could be
used, but aren't always necessary. It is confusing because the
'generic' instructions have to be least common denominator, and deal
with raw source from the maintainers themselves (and not from each
distro). It is just confusing, and nobody has tamed it yet.
Rodolfo has a good idea IMO. Include dependency checks for basic
necessary packages, and bundle ldp.dsl (and probably comparable xml
stylesheet). I would suggest maybe also some templates and the LAG.
And maybe have the packaging tool build a test case source file during
the install. ;-)
--
Hal Burgiss
