Hi, Ping again. Without any answer, at some point I'll just go ahead with the compromise that I suggested.
Cheers, On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi Guillem, > > can you reply to my mail below? > > I don't want this request to sit there for months. We should be able to > take such small design decisions in reasonable timeframes. > > Cheers, > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, 01 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > But ok, we can take some more time to discuss and push it for 1.16.1. > > > > So what should we change to re-enable the field? > > > > Given the concerns you raised, we can at least drop the source entry from > > Package-List. > > > > Maybe introduce Priority/Section as new fields in the .dsc although > > nothing is making use of that information and while I was confortable > > adding it within an existing field, I'm not convinced it's important > > enough to add 2 new fields. > > > > Concerning the architecture information, I'm not attached to keeping > > it in the field, but I believe exporting the architecture information > > would be much more useful than the section/priority (which is mainly > > interesting for ftpmasters but has few users outside of them). So my > > vote is rather to keep it in the field. But I'd rather drop it if it can > > help resolve the discussion sooner, it can always be added later on... we > > must just define the field as being extendable and that parsers must > > just ignore supplementary columns. > > > > Whatever the decision on the arch column in Package-List, we can still fix > > the "Architecture" field to include the missing "all" which is wrongly > > hidden by the "any" (and fix policy accordingly). > > > > I have already responded to the concerns of Priority/Section being > > updated at build time and I argue that it's not important enough to > > extend the syntax of that field. It still represents the default value > > of section/priority for most architectures. If such an inconsistency ever > > arises, it will concern a very small number of packages and the invalid > > field will only lead to some override disparities message which are easily > > fixed by the ftpmasters (provided they have extended the overrides to be > > per-arch). > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer > > > > Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) > > ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) > -- > Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer > > Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) > ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) > > > -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
