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
unclear.
> 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