Re: [PATCH] Change format of packages.txt/binary.packages to be machine readable
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> wrote:
> Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
>> I've updated the patch to remove some descriptive text that was being
>> added to file and also name the copy outside of the image
>> binary.manifest instead of binary.packages (the latter change less
>> important, just my personal preference since it seems *.manifest seems
>> to be the standard naming convention for live filesystem package manifests).
>
> manifest has been only used for casper in ubuntu; we've never used that
> but .packages suffix instead.
>
> unrelated to this, i see no gain in removing the descriptive text, do you?
This format is better for cheking by scripts or so if the list of
packages from two versions are very different and in which packages or
versions, but also for live installer systems to know which packages
are on the chroot envirment.
Ubiquity, for example, use this list and the same minus the packages
just needed for the installer (ubiquity + d-i) itself, so it can make
a "diff" between both files and know which packages need to remove for
having a nomral system installed.
I mean, a normal system doesn't need a d-i or ubiquity dependencies...
Those are the main benefit.
But as Cody said, I'd like to have both files rather then swaping them :-)
--
Juanje
Reply to: