Re: Proposing a new source control header to link to upstream BTSs
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Proposing a new source control header to link to upstream BTSs
- From: "Martín Ferrari" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 08:26:00 -0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20080318164548.GA15248@rotes76.wohnheim.uni-kl.de>
- References: <email@example.com> <20080317075938.GB4470@free.fr> <47DF5345.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080318081759.GA4055@free.fr> <email@example.com> <20080318164548.GA15248@rotes76.wohnheim.uni-kl.de>
In March, I proposed adding some useful (to me) fields to the control
file, along this idea:
Which were furiously rejected by many people, in the usual and
friendly tone commonly seen in -devel.
> Do that please but keep your fingers off the Packages files. The value
> of your meta information is not worth the costs of its distribution to
> every user's local system.
But just now I saw this in the dpkg changelog:
dpkg (1.7.0) unstable; urgency=low
* Add Origin and Bugs fields to the control file
-- Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:28:39 +0100
Those were documented (or so) in deb-control(5) only last October, so
it's no wonder nobody replied telling me that the idea I had was
already implemented more than 7 years ago! Currently, there are about
two source packages in the archive using these fields.
There's no mention that I could find of those fields in the Debian
Policy nor in the Dev Ref. I guess that reading dpkg source code
should be added as a requirement to the NM templates.