Re: Proposal of new control field: Date
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> PW> Which date would it contain?
> The date the maintainer made the polishing touches on the .deb.
We don't have that date. We do have:
The date from the changelog/changes file. Depending on the workflow
the maintainer uses, this could be when they first started working on
the package or just before they uploaded it.
The date stored in the GPG signature on the dsc file. This is probably
usually just before the package was uploaded. Probably closest to what
you want, except for NMUs.
The date stored in the GPG signature on the changes file. This is
probably usually just before the package was uploaded. This will
differ between architectures though.
The date the archive software imported the .deb into the archive.
> That way one could tell, even when offline, if a package hasn't been
> updated in ten years.
I hope we don't have any of those.
> But OK, Size is more important than Date, so it gets a field in Packages.gz.
I don't agree that Size is more much important than Date, both are
information that can be used when deciding to install a package.
At some point we have to stop including more info into Packages
though, I don't think that screenshots should be added uuencoded to
Packages for example.