Re: Fields used in packages
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:
>
> > Candidates for policy so far:
> > http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/4policy
> > (Multi-Arch field added)
>
> Oh, good, that's less than I thought there would be.
IMO, standardized fields (non-XBSC) are quite well documented in policy, and I
didn't expected to find so much of it, however user-defined fields (XBSC) are not
at all documented and couldn't be easily reused.
> We should probably
> add Origin as well.
Yeah, I added Origin to my `4policy' for now.
> > 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.
>
> Autobuild should probably go into Policy. It's used for non-free packages
> to indicate that it's legal for the buildds to build the packages.
>
> Original-Maintainer is odd -- Ubuntu uses that for packages imported and
> modified in Ubuntu, but I'm not sure what it's being used for in Debian.
> It seems like it might be worth documenting, though.
Autobuild and Original-Maintainer are user-defined (XBSC) and I thought that
policy should only mandate how user-defined fields are constructed as it does in
#5.7. Concrete user-defined fields are subject to the user, eventually well
documented so that can be reused by others. Make sense?
> I wonder what's up with all the Gstreamer and Npp fields.
These and Tads3-Version seem like a blatant abuse of user-defined fields
mechanism to me.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: