Re: Description-less packages file
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:51:26PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refusing an
> > additional field in the Packages files? It is hard to cope with "it is
> > unlikely". A yes or no would be more helpful to find a reasonable
> > decision for the UDD importer.
> It's not just a simple oneline more thing. It ends up being "long desc
> goes away, d-md5 field gets in". Plenty disruptive.
I fully agree that dropping long desc would be disruptive enough to not
consider this at all for sure. So I was just asking for *adding* the
field. But we could consider this as "no matter to discuss" now because
we decided to calculate the missing field in the importer and there is
no need to change any Packages file any mor.