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

Re: Release management and package announcements

On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Ian Jackson wrote:

> We need to decide what information the package maintainer needs to
> supply to the FTP site maintainer for the correct placement of the
> package.
> I don't particularly care about how this is represented in the
> (machine-readable) dchanges format, and I'd like Bruce to tell Bill
> and I how this should be represented.
> Is everyone reasonably happy with the above ?

I am.

I had sent Ian J. a rough-cut example of a new changes file
format growing mainly out of my exchanges with Ian M. on this.
It looks similar to format produced by the current dchanges
program, with changes generally to better address source
packages with multiple .deb files, and to replace the File
fields with a Files section at the end which contains the
ls and md5sum output requested by Ian M.

Regarding the new requirement, I suggest a Distribution field 
containing a blank-delimited list of distribution destinations,
similar to the following:

Distribution: 0.93 1.0

dchanges would supply a blank Distribution field, and consider
it legal to leave the field blank (Should dchanges complain?
A blank field can probably be taken to mean that the package
should go into the then-current distribution.)

If nobody objects, I'll try to get a replacement dchanges package
uploaded soon.  I don't expect to be the implementor of the scripts
on the distribution site which will need to read the changes file.
I'll try to define a file format to make this easy, and to describe
it completely enough in a dchanges(5) man page that the implementor
of these scripts can work from that.  I'd like to know who will be
implementing the scripts on the distribution site, so I can discuss
any problems with or future changes to the dchanges(5) format with
him/her via email.

If there are objections, please speak up.

Reply to: