[openssl-project] platforms

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:48:58PM +0100, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <20180109202908.GA6587 at roeckx.be> on Tue, 9 Jan 2018 21:29:09 +0100, Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be> said:
> 
> kurt> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:37:11PM +0100, Richard Levitte wrote:
> kurt> > +Naming conventions for config files
> kurt> > +===================================
> kurt> > +
> kurt> > +Config files (*.conf) are named {nn}-{name}.conf, where {nn} is a two
> kurt> > +digit number and {name} is an indicator of what kind of configuration
> kurt> > +can be expected in the file.  The convention for {name} may be refined
> kurt> > +for some number groups.
> kurt> > +
> kurt> > +The number {nn} is somewhat loosely grouped as follows:
> kurt> > +
> kurt> > +00-09  Templates
> kurt> > +10-19  Primary platforms (*)
> kurt> > +20-49  Secondary platforms (*)
> kurt> > +50-69  Community provided platforms (*)
> kurt> > +70-88  Unknown platforms (*)
> kurt> > +89     Deprecated platforms (*)
> kurt> > +90-99  Personal configs (**)
> kurt> 
> kurt> In Debian I use the attached patch. It's an easy way for me to
> kurt> override the defaults and be follow the Debian policy. Is that
> kurt> something that would fall under the community provided?
> 
> I would say that these are packager private configs rather than
> something the community at large would benefit from, at least
> directly.

So you suggest I put them in the 90-99 range?

> Frankly, I think you can expect an answer along the same lines as you
> could expect from any upstream project that you'd ask "hey, wanna take
> care of debian/ for us?"...

Debian actually prefer that upstream doesn't contain any debian
directory, and I guess anything specific to Debian.


Kurt