Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > Seems I missed another file:
> * .changes: > policy → «upload control file» / «Debian changes file» > dpkg → «upload control file» / «.changes control file» / > «Debian .changes file» / «Debian changes file» [...] > For changes I think something like the following might be a more clear > option (and has the minor bonus of aligning perfectly on the first > words! :), with it mentioning explicitly this is about changes being > uploaded, and that it is a control file (but I'm not sure I'm entirely > convinced about it): > * .changes: «Debian upload changes control files» [...] > I've also found instances of «record» and «section» referring to fields > or stanzas. [...] > I also recalled another term that has always seemed very confusing in > context: «control information files» or «control information area». For > example in a sentence such as “the control file is a control information > file in the control information area in a .deb archive”. :) This also > seems confusing when some of the files in the .deb control member are > not really “control files” with a deb822(5) format. > My thinking has been going into calling these as the «metadata files», > and being located in either the «metadata part of the .deb archive» or > explicitly the «control member of the .deb archive», in contrast to the > filesystem part. In dpkg I'd be eventually switching to meta/metadata > and fsys/filesystem, from control or info and data. I've added a patch > with the proposed change, but again nothing set in stone, and I'm again > open to discussing pros/cons of this. > Attached the proposals for discussion/review, and I might again have > perhaps missed instances or similar. All of these changes seem straightforward and uncontroversial to me, and there are huge advantages to using consistent terminology between Policy and dpkg. I have applied all of them for the next Policy release. Thank you! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
