[ Moving to debian-policy ]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> We do not want to have different helper package start inventing
>>> a helper specific way of building ddebs, with no clear standard tha
>>> they are following.
>>> While archive coverage is nice, ensuring that a ddeb is
>>> properly defined, and that all the different ways of creating ddebs are
>>> consistent, should happen first.
>> OK, so you mean I should document the ddeb format (which is that of
>> .deb packages) and possibly include it in policy? That makes sense, if
>> you want that I'll propose a patch for policy (note that udebs are not
>> documented though).
>
> But regular packages are not creating udebs; and the whole idea
> behind "automated" ddeb creation is that the ./debian/rules file
> optionally creates ddebs. Since this affects the majority of packages,
> I think we need to be clear up front about ddeb creation.
I've documented the .ddeb format in the wiki page [1] ("DDeb Format", which is
short since the format is basically that of .debs). Do we really need this to be
documented in policy?
Also, does anybody see a problem with adding .ddebs to the .changes file (in
Files and *-Checksums), when they are not in debian/control? It seems to me like
that's not a policy violation, but I could be wrong.
Best regards,
Emilio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature