Bug#991533: lintian: please forget about required-field Standards-Version for udeb packages
Hi Sam,
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:42 AM Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
>
> I'd need to know more ... in order to have an opinion on
> whether there should be an obligation to comply with these aspects of
> policy.
Thank you for your line of thinking. I totally agree with you.
> 1) I realize i don't entirely know why udebs are udebs not debs.
I would like to understand that too. From what I can tell, setting a
flag in the binary DEBIAN/control file would have been superior since
the formats are actually the same. (Perhaps the custom extension
ensures that APT does not get confused between both kinds of
installables without opening them; in that case I would have chosen a
basename postfix.)
> I'd say that there are significant chunks of policy it would be a great
> idea for d-i packages to comply with.
Are source packages building d-i micro debs exempt from policy? Is
that even possible?
Thank you!
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
Reply to: