[csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs amanda

[Philip Brown]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Darin Perusich
<Darin.Perusich at cognigencorp.com> wrote:
>
> I think this is ridiculous. If I was going against the "core principles"
> then why wasn't this package denied acceptance previously for that very
> reason?
>

that's a very fair question. The answer is, that when the package was
originally created, many many years ago(in 2006, as you say), there
was no standard way to tell the users' choice in the matter, let alone
a reliable standard framework to make implementing it easy.

Now, there is.


> This straightforward framework, which the standards pages says is "in
> flux", is *only* detailed in the building standards, how is the end user
> suppose to know of it's existence? Tell me, if this is so
> "straightforward" and "easy to use" which package includes the
> /opt/csw/etc/csw.conf and /etc/opt/csw/csw.conf files and where is the
> end user documentation detailing the usage?

http://www.opencsw.org/standards/csw.conf


But you raise a very good point; that this could be better advertised
to our users. Thank you for pointing that out!

Currently, it is only linked to from our maintainer-side docs. I have
now added in a link from our main userguide page as well.




> Given this, should one conclude that  *all* new packages are being
> evaluated to ensure they conform with these improvements? I expect not
> and this just happened fresh in your mind based on recent discussion.

I cant claim that I have evaluated ALL packages... I do it when I have
time available for more in-depth analysis. But the intent is certainly
there. I  believe that I have taken a quick glance at all
demon-running packages when I have released them in the past year, and
the ones that have demons of some kind, all use our framework, or at
least respect csw.conf
If they dont, then I may have not been aware that they run demons.