Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?

[Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I know this is the key issue, that's why the subject of the request is the
> only question "Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?".

Good.

> There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches,

[...]

I had gone through that bug report, but it would certainly be helpful
if the pros and cons were reiterated in a more concise form.

FWICT, they're:

Keep P-T:
A) Tell what type of deb it is 
B) No need to special case udeb handling


Discard P-T:
C) Size
D) Current implementation shoves Package-Type into .changes (wrong
place; maybe missing an XI- in the control file?)


My current understanding: 

A) Section: and the file extension obviate this to some extent

B) udeb is already special cased, so not sure that this is a big
problem

C) About 10 bytes per udeb; not sure how big of a deal this is (but
d-i people say it matters)

D) Unfortunatly, this is the only way to currently not include P-T,
but this is an implementation detail, and distinct from whether or not
it should be included.


Don Armstrong

-- 
[T]he question of whether Machines Can Think, [...] is about as
relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim.
 -- Edsger W. Dijkstra "The threats to computing science"

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu