Re: RFS: SDLJump
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 09:18:40AM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:48 +0200, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> > udeb definition, and there is no need for D-I to have such a huge
> > sledge hammer in order to break the tiny (vaporware) issue of game
> > loading
>
> Indulge me another moment, and then I'll shut up. Aren't we just
> talking about one package header vs. another? I just don't see the
> point in a new "X-" header just to flag this one aspect of game packages
> that could just as easily be implemented as a tag. Or if it is a
> "sledgehammer" as you say, I still wonder even if the "X-" header is the
> most efficient implementation from D-I's perspective, if those headers
> should be defined in terms of some debtags classification. I think
> that's more consistent from the user's perspective. (I'm assuming a user
> might care about locating the subset of packages flagged as D-I game
> material outside of the context of doing an actual install. But maybe
> I'm totally off-base.)
Ben, ...
I am unfamiliar with debtags, can you give us a quick example of how such a
tag looks like, and how it could be used to denote a game ?
Something like :
X-DebTag: d-i-game ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: