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

Bug#575059: marked as done (Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?)



Your message dated Fri, 14 May 2010 15:07:49 +0200
with message-id <20100514130749.GA22274@rivendell>
and subject line Package-Type not included in udebs
has caused the Debian Bug report #575059,
regarding Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
575059: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575059
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tech-ctte

(a change in lintian is triggering my request)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> following the instructions given by Frans in [1], 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
> packages.
> 
>  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.

Hi,

I'm a bit annoyed with lintian officializing usage of the non-official
field name.

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
here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=452273

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.

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/



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Anyway, I'd rather just make dpkg-dev special case udebs and not
> > output the field to the binary, even if I think that will imply lose
> > of automation and better integration among others, than a possible
> > solution shoved down the d-i team throat which they seem to consider
> > completely unacceptable (even if probably that outcome is unlikely
> > given the stance of some of the ctte members, but still), or my
> > throat.
> 
> I think if you're happy with the field not going into the udebs (for
> at least the time being), there's not much of a disagreement here.
> [FWICT, the primary concern of the d-i team was space, and your
> proposed solutions seem to be aware of them.]

dpkg-dev 1.15.7 stopped outputting the field by default. So this bug can
be closed (doing so now). Not really a decision of the committee but I
just wanted a decision taken.

The lintian tag package-type-in-debian-control can be dropped and replaced
by a xc-package-type-in-debian-control that suggests to do the opposite
and use the official name.

To the d-i team: you can start converting your packages to use the official name
now.

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/


--- End Message ---

Reply to: