Re: changes to Packages file

[Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>]

[ executive summary: I agree with all of these changes in principle,
  but would like to defer deciding the implementation specifics for
  4--6 weeks so that they can be considered in the context of the
  broader package format changes I plan to propose then. ]

Vincent Renardias <vincent@waw.com> writes:
> So now we need to get the opinion from the dpkg maintainers... _(;

Sorry, the dpkg maintainer was getting his debian-related mail through
master.debian.org and so was off-line for a couple of days.

I fully agree with the following proposed changes to the source
packaging format:

  * include the package description in the mailed changes file

  * include build / source packaging date in source and binary
    packages

  * provide reference to upstream sources, upstream maintainers, and
    other upstream documentation as part of the debian package in a
    machine-accessible format.

  * provide a mechanism for finer-grain classification of the
    package license, at least where this is practical

I'm concerned that we not allow these changes to increase the size of
the Packages files too much (they're too big already), but I consider
this indexing problem an issue to be solved separately from the
problem of storing the information in the packages themselves.

In fact, I'm currently working on a new source packaging format to
support many of these features as we speak.  It's extremely
alpha-quality at this point, but it already supports the following
features:

  * multiple signed upstream sources and patch files, while still
    preserving safe source unpacking (no script-files)

  * source package dependencies and automatic package building in a
    'chrooted' pristine build environment automatically constructed
    at build time

  * storage of RPM-style .spec files for use in building RPMS and
    dpkg-format packages from the same source package, as well as
    automatic conversion to/from SRPM format (halfway done).

It's not quite ready for public review just yet, but I'd be happy to
send a copy to anyone who's particularly interested (I expect the
first alpha-release over this weekend).  For more information on the
design goals, see the 'New Source Formats and Source Package
Verification' and commentary posted to debian-devel around mid-May.

Given that I already have significant changes to the source package
format currently in progress, and given that I'd like to stabilize
1.4.0.19 for release to stable as soon as possible, I'd like to
propose the following:

 * we agree to all of the above changes in principle

 * we defer deciding the exact implementation for 4--6 weeks until we
   can consider them in relation to the new source packaging format

Any strong objections?  Questions or comments?  E-mail me personally
and I'll be happy to summarize.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .