Re: please upgrade your packages to current standards
kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> dwarf@polaris.net (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.980106124057.10727B-100000@dwarf.polaris.net>:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >
> > > Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
> >
> > Probably.
>
> I tend to do it like this:
>
> * don't include them in the first version of the package
>
> * see where Guy installs it (best look into the override file)
>
> * put those values into the next version
>
> This ought to solve most problems.
It solves the problem with incorrect fields, but not the problem that
prompted my complaint in the first place, namely that the fields are
absent in some (many) packages.
The Debian distribution is - in my opinion - far too dependent on the
existence of a correct and uptodate Packages file. E.g. in a
situation with a partial mirror (or partial uptodate mirror) the
Packages file cannot be expected to be fully synchronized with the
mirror. I like the feature of dpkg/dselect where I can scan a bunch
of packages for this information, but it is not of much use if half of
the packages come out as unclassified. This gives me the impression
of a low quality distribution (even Redhat can do this right).
- Sten Anderson
--
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: