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

Re: Missing or incorrect section in packages

Chuan-kai Lin wrote:
> I have recently noticed that many binary packages does not have correct
> Section: declaration (either missing or disagree with the override file)
> and this problem is causing apt-move to drop packages.  I have counted
> 51 packages in stable-updates that resides in main but has non-US listed
> in the Section header; and 110 or so binary packages in stable that does
> not have Section declared.  I would like some opinions on:

Note that the 110 or so packages built without -isp loosely correlates
to the 308 or so packages built without debhelper or any equivilant
tools. Even in that set of packages there is apparently a 2/3 majority
that prefer it. I'll bet that 50% of the 110 without -isp are
unmaintained dead packages too.

>  1. Does everyone agree that this is a problem to be addressed?
>     Policy seems to be vague regarding whether Section declaration in
>     control file is mandated or optional.

Policy is actually fairly clear about it in secrion 2.1.7:

     The section and subsection for each package should be specified in
     the package's `Section' control record. However, the maintainer of
     the Debian archive may override this selection to ensure the
     consistency of the Debian distribution.

I assume it means binary packages here, that is the only bit that is

>  2. If yes, what is the best way do address the issue?  Are there
>     better ways than mass-filing bugs?

apt-move should really be fixed to use the info from the Packages
file instead.

Maybe file bugs on the non-us thing, it is clearly wrong. I've been
inclined to let attrition and updates fix the -isp-less packages, but
attrition can only go so far.

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpEo9zgrK4CH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: