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

Re: Bug#521810: debian-policy: Document user defined fields starting with X-

On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 12:11:04 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Another option could be to add a new modifier, like P(rivate) or
> > U(ser), to be used like XPBS-Field: which would preserve the X-. But
> > then you need a new enough dpkg-dev to be able to get that field.
> I like that idea. It's not a big deal to have to use a recent dpkg-dev,
> there aren't so many users of custom fields...

Right, I agree it's no big deal if it's going to be used privately.
Although I still find the X- usage confusing by overloading its
current meaning. And I don't think it would be a good idea to for
example output a Private-Field from XPB-Field.

> > I like (XB-)Private-, it works now, and it's pretty clear about what
> > it means. If it's going to be used only for internal use, then Private-
> > should be enough, but if those packages are going to be made public and
> > used by other distros or derivatives, it might make sense to namespace
> > them with project or company name to avoid possible collisions, due to
> > more chances of uncoordination about those additions, so something like
> > XB-Private-Distro-Field (I guess the same should apply if those
> > projects or companies add support to their dpkg for those fields,
> > though, like in Distro-Field).
> It's a bit too verbose for me but I could live with that. :)

Yeah, it's a bit verbose but I don't think that should be a problem, if
you or someone else has a shorter and clear name proposal we could use
instead, that'd be great. Otherwise if you don't mind I'd like to change
the code in dpkg-deb to ignore ‘Private-’.


Reply to: