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.
. as in hamm, the link binary -> binary-i386 should disappear for
. 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
email : firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
pgp : A1 7D F6 7B 69 73 48 35 E1 DE 21 A7 A8 9A 77 92
finger: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .