Re: Bug#697433: Is the Package-List field necessary for uploads ?
Jonathan Nieder <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> In response to the other follow-up, I don't think this is the right
>> place (or bug) to discuss udeb package behavior or what portions of
>> Policy they comply with.
> Surely it is relevant to people reading policy that it does not comply
> with them all (or in other words that they are out of policy scope), no?
Sure. But it's not directly relevant to the problem we're trying to
solve. Or, put another way, it's broader than just this section. I want
to be sure we don't get sidetracked into that larger effort while
addressing missing documentation for standard fields.
> Advertising udeb as a valid package-type for policy-compliant packages
> gives the opposite impression.
We already talk about udeb in various places (shlibs, for instance). This
isn't a new problem.
I don't see an open bug about udebs in general off-hand. If I'm not
missing something, it certainly seems reasonable to open one.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>