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

Consens for `Filename: ' in Packages file?


as maintaining the non-us ftp server and while trying to create an
alternat debian-cd script I'm wondering about a consens regarding
the Filename: header in the Packages file.  

In stable/binary-i386/Packages I found:


as similar (_similar) in unstable/binary-i368/Packages:


... here we have `dists' prepended :-/

and in non-US/bo/binary-i386/Packages:


I feel, we should find a somewhat more intuitive approach.  And we
should know what the various install programs are expecting here ...

IMHO the Filename: header should start with the architecture element, as
nobody knows if bo is the mount point for e.g. the non-us archive.

For short:

    . as in hamm, the link binary -> binary-i386 should disappear for
      non-US too.

    . the Packages-File should be located in the binary-<arch> directory

    . the Filename: header in the packages file should start with the
      directory the package is located in

Any opinions?

email : heiko@lotte.sax.de heiko@debian.org heiko@sax.de
pgp   : A1 7D F6 7B 69 73 48 35  E1 DE 21 A7 A8 9A 77 92 
finger: heiko@sax.sax.de         heiko@master.debian.org

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 .

Reply to: