Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.4.1
Severity: wishlist
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-gencontrol
[ This topic has been discussed in the past at least by djpig, which I'm
Cc-ing, but I can't find trace of it in the BTS. ]
It would be nice to have support for a Description field in the source
stanza of debian/control.
My rationale for that is manyfold:
0) (Starting intuition) most source package have a description per se,
intuitively, that is the same description you'd find on the upstream
homepage that made you download a specific software. Sure different
binary packages can have different specific purpose, but it is in
most cases possible to have a single all-encompassing description.
1) Various pieces of Debian infrastructure would benefit from
source package descriptions, a few examples:
- the PTS (currently lacking entirely per-source-package
descriptions)
- packages.d.o for its source pages
- DDPO (currently implementing a custom heuristic to map per-binary
descriptions to sources)
2) A frequent pattern in debian/control is as follows:
Package: a
Description: a is foo bar ...
Project src is .... (COMMON TEXT)
.
In this package you find a
Package: b
Description: b is baz quux ...
Project src is .... (COMMON TEXT)
.
In this package you find b
Source descriptions can be used to factoring out COMMON TEXT in a
single place.
I'm reporting this bug report against dpkg-dev because, AFAICT, it would
be simply possible to implement this wishlist as an expansion done by
dpkg-gencontrol at the end of the build. The expansion would simply copy
the COMMON TEXT from the source package description (if any) at the
beginning of each binary package description (possibly adding a
paragraph separator "\n.\n"). I've no idea if such a naive
implementation would have drawbacks elsewhere.
Of course, to fully exploit the advantages required for the use cases
above, changes in other infrastructure part would be needed (most
notably in all libraries parsing Sources). Still, implementing the above
in dpkg-dev would at least solve the issue (2) above, possibly paving
the way to a more gradual diffusion.
What is the stance of dpkg-dev maintainers on this?
TIA,
Cheers.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on:
ii binutils 2.20-3 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii bzip2 1.0.5-3 high-quality block-sorting file co
ii dpkg 1.15.4.1 Debian package management system
ii libtimedate-perl 1.1900-1 Time and date functions for Perl
ii lzma 4.43-14 Compression method of 7z format in
ii make 3.81-7 An utility for Directing compilati
ii patch 2.5.9-5 Apply a diff file to an original
ii perl [perl5] 5.10.1-7 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii perl-modules 5.10.1-7 Core Perl modules
Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends:
ii build-essential 11.4 Informational list of build-essent
ii fakeroot 1.14.3 Gives a fake root environment
ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:4.3.4-1 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.1 [c-compiler] 4.1.2-27 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.3 [c-compiler] 4.3.4-6 The GNU C compiler
ii gnupg 1.4.10-2 GNU privacy guard - a free PGP rep
ii gpgv 1.4.10-2 GNU privacy guard - signature veri
Versions of packages dpkg-dev suggests:
ii debian-keyring [debian-mainta 2009.08.27 GnuPG (and obsolete PGP) keys of D
-- no debconf information
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
