Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
(a change in lintian is triggering my request)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> following the instructions given by Frans in , I've written a tiny
> check to ensure I wasn't missing any occurrences in the bunch of udebs
> I'm currently adding. I guess it would be better to check what happens
> in the resulting binaries, but I wanted to be aware of such issues
> *before* even building those packages; that's why I implemented it so
> that it checks the source control file. Hopefully, you'll get the idea
> and either move it entirely, or only “duplicate” it for the binary
> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2010/02/msg00524.html
> +Tag: package-type-in-debian-control
> +Severity: important
> +Certainty: certain
> +Info: There is a Package-Type field in the <tt>debian/control</tt>
> + file. This field is only relevant to the build process and should
> + not be embedded in the resulting binary package. As a consequence,
> + XC-Package-Type should be used instead.
I'm a bit annoyed with lintian officializing usage of the non-official
It's counterproductive IMO. The issue should be resolved at the dpkg
level. Unfortunately the underlying issue has never been resolved
between Guillem and the d-i team, you can find the discussion
Hence I'm seeking advice from the technical committee. In the mean time, I
think this warning should not be kept in lintian.
Should dpkg continue to copy the Package-Type field in the binary (.udeb)
or not ?
I believe advantages and disadvantages have been listed in the discussion
in the bug report above. Some further changes in other tools might be
needed to accomodate the needs of the d-i team in that case.
Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/