Re: Bug#619131: New field Package-List in .dsc
Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> If it really is in the .dsc files then it would be nice if it also
>> could include the Architecture: of those packages. That would make it
>> easier for things like reprepro to decide if there might be some binary
>> package missing. (Or for other forms of poor-man's stateless
>> wanna-build stuff).
> The architecture is not a single value, but rather a list of values (in
> the source package). It might be doable to put that list at the end of
> the line but it doesn't feel quite right. What do others think?
The missing architecture was my immediate thought as well, since for a
moment I thought ftp-master might need it, but then I realized that the
override settings are arch: all. So I'm ambivalent.
I will mention that if you wanted to add the architecture, you could just
s/ +/,/g on the architecture list and then you'd get something that should
be reasonably easy to parse and would still use spaces to separate from
other fields, since the architecture list isn't too complex in syntax
other than being a list.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>