Hi, On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean this file would only contain the > binNMU revision changelog entry, or that it would append it to the > source changelog and move it to that new path, or both would be > installed alongside (or maybe something else)? And the binary control > field would get that field added how?
I think the various people who participated in the discussion did not mean the same thing... :-) > In any case this looks rather ugly, and implies dpkg-deb has to start > changing the contents before build, which is something I've said > before (in others contexts) I don't want to see it start doing. That > would imply dpkg-deb needs to know about packaging policy decision, > and file system layout, etc. The most it should do is verify the > control member for things it knows about. I agree that dpkg-deb should have nothing to do for this specific case. I have suggested that the binnmu changelog (which is a single line, or could easily be constrained to a single line) should just become a new control header so that the changelog can be installed unmodified. This could be injected by dpkg-gencontrol based on some information provided by dpkg-buildpackage (likely a specific environment variable). The version number to use for the binary packages would be also dynamically generated by appending some extension to the version number seen in debian/changelog. This would even allow to use something else than +bX for bin-nmu which is desirable for many other usages (backports, PPA, etc.). > What comes to mind, even if slightly radical, is that the Debian > changelog file makes more sense as being part of the .deb control > member, and as such end up under the dpkg database. Which would > elegantly solve the co-installability problem, and would allow for > stuff like “dpkg --changelog foo” or “dpkg-deb --changelog foo.deb” > to work reliably (similar to the rpm counterparts). While this sounds nice, I don't like the cost it imposes on all dpkg runs... the info directory is scanned frequently and adding files that don't have to be there is not a good idea IMO. Also some packages are providing the changelog in a -common package to avoid its duplication, and this change would not allow something like this without some special handling. Cheers, -- 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] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
