Re: Packages file (long email) [WAS: Splitting Packages]
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:53:38 +0200
"Fabio Massimo Di Nitto" <fabbione@fabbione.net> wrote:
I think you may have a point about Essential, all Essential packages are
Priority: required, i cant think why we cant have a Priority: essential
that is more strict than required. That said, im sure its been considered
(and asked) many times before, so anyone else know why Essential cant be
implemented as a priority ?
> Why there is a source field in an optional pkg and not in bash for
> instance??
If Source: isnt specified its assumed to be of the same name as the binary
package.
> Now that's just the general idea that pushed me to think to a sort of
> "new" structure. Ex:
I think the question that has to be considered before doing this is,
Should the Packages file be human readable i.e. text or binary ?
If a binary file was used a text file could be generated from it for
compatability.
Glenn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: