Re: please upgrade your packages to current standards
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
Probably.
>
> If so, then I think it is far more effective to change dpkg's default
> behaviour so that it does include these fields, rather than requiring
> an explicit flag -isp.
>
Dpkg can't put them in if the information is not available in the control
file.
> However, I don't know the history behind this. What is the reason for
> not including Section and Priority by default?
>
I believe that if you put section and priority fields in the "package"
section of the control file, dpkg puts them into the control file for the
package. How would dpkg be able to do this by default without knowing all
the section and priority values for all packages?
These were thought to be unnecessary (from the developers point of view)
because the installer on master (from the overrides file) inserts the
correct values into the packages and contents file dispite what the
control file might say.
With my "user" hat on, I like having the package contain these fields, as
I typically use mc to dive into a new .deb file to see what it contains.
The INFO file thus provided is more informative if it contains section and
priority information.
As a developer, I have already begun to put these fields into my packages.
The feedback I get from the installer is useful if we disagree on location
because I can then discuss it. This allows packages to be "relocated" if
there is a place where users are more likely to look.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
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: