Re: Bug#203145: (uploaders in control) Note: not in .deb
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 03:44:19PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 03:18:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > Please note that current packaging scripts do not propagate the
> > > Uploaders: field into .deb's. So either policy should not require that
> > > (or evenforbid it), or the packaging scripts should be changed to _do_
> > > propagate this information (needing a rebuild of _all_ debs of packages
> > > that have comaintainers, but as a policy version bump requires such a
> > > rebuild, this is no issue).
> > >
> > > The .dsc has the Uploaders field propagated though.
> >
> > This is a standard dpkg behaviour. For each field, dpkg know whether
> > the field need to appear in .dsc, .changes or DEBIAN/control, as
> > explained in Policy chapter 5
>
> Indeed, and it says it isn't propagated at all for unknown fields, while
> it apparantly IS propagated for .dsc files: the Uploader: field must be
> somewhere coded in dpkg for this to happen (or dpkg isn't policy
> compliant and propagates any unkown field from debian/control to .dsc,
> but I won't assume this).
>
> Anyway, how this is happening exactly is not relevant, what the policy
> should be is relevant, and current dpkg behaviour is of minor but indeed
> some importance (as it has direct consequences for ease of
> implementation of policy, simply documenting current behaviour would be
> by far the easiest).
>
> What is the point you're trying to make?
That dpkg behave correctly and that the lack of mention of Uploader:
in policy is a problem with the policy document not with dpkg.
Policy is supposed to document current practice, hence dpkg current behavior.
That's said I have in favour of documenting Uploader:, obviously.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: