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

To: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>, 575059@bugs.debian.org, 575059@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:21:19 -0600
Message-id: <[🔎] 87tyrv9p1s.fsf@gag.com>
Mail-followup-to: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
Reply-to: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 575059@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20100401090329.GA7055@rivendell>
References: <20100311044208.6672.83197.reportbug@bowmore> <20100323080013.GA8637@rivendell> <87k4t38m9u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20100323111043.GC24840@rivendell> <[🔎] 20100401013908.GW21525@teltox.donarmstrong.com> <[🔎] 20100401060948.GA5801@rivendell> <[🔎] 20100401072643.GZ21525@teltox.donarmstrong.com> <[🔎] 20100401090329.GA7055@rivendell>

I see no value in having Package-Type in udebs.  Even if it makes sense
to use Package-Type to differentiate various "full" package types in the
future, I would be inclined to continue to treat udebs specially because
of their legitimate unique interest in maintaining a minimum footprint.

Bdale

Attachment: pgp64pB3UHUAB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to:

References:
- Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
  - From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
- Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
  - From: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
- Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
  - From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
- Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
  - From: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
Next by Date: Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
Previous by thread: Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
Next by thread: Bug#575059: Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread