[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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:

>From the "keep P-T" point of view:
Pros:
- Package type is explicit even if renamed for whatever reason
- Allows dpkg-deb to choose the right package name automatically
  (currently, dh_builddeb has special code to give an alternate name)
- Would seem logical given that more "Package-Type" might be added
  in the future (Translation DEB, debugging debs mainly).
- Could be reliably used to prevent users from installing an udeb on a
  normal system

Cons:
- Increased size of udebs (~10 bytes per udeb)
- Might need some changes in the code generating Packages file to drop
  the Package-Type: field for a udeb-only repository (to avoid a size
  increase due to the new field)

> D) Current implementation shoves Package-Type into .changes (wrong
> place; maybe missing an XI- in the control file?)

"X-Package-Type: " should work as simple marker field that is not copied
anywhere AFAIK (but it might not have been the case with dpkg-dev's
version at the time when udeb were designed by Joey). In any case the fact
that the field is copied to the .changes is not a serious drawback that
justifies this call to the tech-ctte.

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

Section: could have been used in place of the Package-Type field from the
beginning if it could really be considered like a reliable marker of
the package type. But it's not and this was a good choice, a
simple categorization field should not have some weird consequences
like those associated with the fact of being a udeb.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

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/



Reply to: