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

Re: Some upcoming dpkg changes, test and feedback welcome

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > +# DEB_SOURCE_PACKAGE: the source package name
> Why DEB_SOURCE_PACKAGE instead of say, DEB_SOURCE? I guess it depends if
> we want to map to field names or to more descriptive (although probably
> redundant) variable names.

Yeah, for me the important keyword seemed to be "PACKAGE" but it was
confusing between source and binary so I ended up being specific with
SOURCE_PACKAGE but indeed DEB_SOURCE is ok given it maps to a field name.


> > +# DEB_VERSION: the full version of the package
> > +# DEB_VERSION_NOREV: the package's version without the Debian revision
> > +# DEB_VERSION_NOEPOCH: the package's version without the Debian epoch
> > +# DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM: the package's upstream version
> These do not seem to have ended up being completely consistent,
> there's a mix of variables listing what's missing, and variables
> listing what's included. What about something like:
> instead?

Fine with me, changed.

> > +# DEB_DISTRIBUTION: the first distribution of the current entry in debian/changelog
> Why only the first, what makes it special? If there's multiple filter
> can always be used.

So that a simple equality test does a good approximation of what was
wanted in the few cases where there are multiple distributions. Because
simple equality test is what people are going to do since 99% of real life
usage in Debian implies a single distribution listed.

Otherwise everybody must always use filter and compare to the empty

In the rare case where someone really wants the multiple distributions,
he can uses dpkg-parsechangelog directly.

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

Reply to: