Re: Additional fields in debian/upstream?
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 01:31:08PM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > My initial idea was to put the information in the Packages file, to
> > allow it to be easily used on every Debian machine. Perhaps it is a
> > better idea to put it ino debian/upstream?
I agree with Charles that debian/upstream might be the proper place here.
> This is indeed the same problem. In the past I have seen opposition
> against blowing up the Packages files with more info (although I agree
> that this is the most convenient solution) -- so I guess that
> debian/upstream would be the best compromise.
Yes.
> There are other people aiming for solving these kinds of problems too,
> of course. But for the sake of coming to a viable solution in a
> reasonable time frame I think we should limit our focus on asking what
> kinds of mappings we want to allow:
I guess if there are other people discussing this it might be a good
idea to rather move discussion to debian-devel. While currently
debian/upstream is only used in some Blends there is no actual reason to
stick this to Blends. I'd rather think by discussing here the topic
might be hidden from other persons who might see some use.
To also answer your initial question whether there is some chance to
break anything: I do not see any way to break anything by adding
(+documenting) new fields. Currently only the Reference field is parsed
by an UDD importer and other fields are ignored. So you are quite free
to add what you want to add and I think we also should collect this
information in UDD.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: