Re: Fields used in packages
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:
>
> > Okay, that sounds reasonable, provided all non-user-defined fields are
> > standard, or otherwise illegal. Another standard field (i.e. non-X[BSC]
> > ) I found is `Bugs'; seems they are hinting someone or something like
> > BTS or LP, though I'm not exactly sure if it is good candidate for reuse
> > [1]. I also sorted packages on per field basis [2] (most interesting
> > fields, not all).
>
> Bugs is sort of an interesting case since there's no reason to ever
> include it in a Debian package, but it's part of the package format and
> people making packages for non-Debian distributions should be aware of
> it. reportbug honors it when directing bugs to a different BTS.
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing it in Policy, although of course Debian packages
> shouldn't use it since we want to use our BTS for everything and that's
> the default.
Candidates for policy so far:
http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/4policy
(Multi-Arch field added)
To be corrected to use Vcs-* (I'll file bugs further):
http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/X-Vcs-Browser
http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/X-Vcs-Svn
The rest are user-defined fields (X[SBC]) which are possible candidates to be
documented in devref or wiki.d.o, since they seem more volatile to me:
http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/
However, I couldn't be precisely sure about the intentions of their creators,
possible values, and parties supposed to honor or consume them as well.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: