[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#697433: Is the Package-List field necessary for uploads ?


On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:32:54 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
> > I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
> > the valid package types.  There's already a Package-Type field for that
> > (defaults to deb and only seems to be used in d/control in the source
> > package).

> thanks for the information, I did not know the Package-Type field.  Is
> there a place where it is documented ?

Like any field recognized by dpkg/dpkg-dev it should be documented in
one of its deb-*(5) man pages (any omission should be considered a bug),
in this case deb-src-control(5).

> With the addition of Package-Type, the description of Package-List would be
> as follows:
>           <p>
>             Multiline field listing all the packages that can be built from
>             the source package, considering every architecture.  The first line
>             of the field value is empty.  Each one of the next lines describe
>             one binary package, by listing its name, type, section and priority
>             separated by spaces.  See the
>             <qref id="f-Package-Type">Package-Type</qref> field for a list of
>             package types.
>           </p>

Parsers should handle other possible values being appended (still
separater by spaces).

> I have one more question about Package-List: will it always list only binary
> packages, or can it also list source packages as suggested when the field was
> proposed ?

It will only list binary packages, not all the information for the
source package is currently available from other fields in the .dsc
file, but it could be exported through those (Priority, Section) if
the need arises. Its name is a bit unfortunate though, it should have
been named something like Binary-List as a replacement for Binary, but
oh well, I guess it's too late now...


Reply to: