Re: Using debian/upstream to document things about Upstream with “umegaya”.
Le Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:09:25AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>
> I would encourage you to merge your efforts with DEP-11 so that the
> upstream metadata can also be made available via apt.
>
> Personally I never understood why you decided to use a file separate
> to debian/control for this metadata.
Dear Paul,
thanks for the comments.
I think that debian/control should not be used for fields that will not be
exported to Debian source control, Debian binary control or Debian changes
files. In line with this, such fields would need to be always prefixed to
prevent dpkg rejecting the file. Also, I prefer to have a separate namespace,
in order to standardise as much as possible on existing formats such as DOAP
without having to worry about dpkg and the Debian Policy.
The data gathered would definitely be available for projects such as DEP 11,
either directly or through the UDD, although I wonder if our projects have a
too different granularity (source package for upstream metadata, applications
for apt). Actually I still do not understand well the information flow for DEP
11. For me, it looks that the ideal carriers for DEP 11 are the FreeDesktop
menu entry files; and this has the advantage that is a good mechanism to share
the metadata between distributions by sending patches upstream.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: