Re: Minutes from the DPG meeting @DebConf9, 2009-07-18
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 09:04, Damyan Ivanov<dmn@debian.org> wrote:
>> I think we discussed this at some point, and I've even sent an email
>> to debian-devel[0] with the usual reaction to proposed changes...
>
> OK. How do we work around then? I guess noone will object if that
> header is not in the archive. Where is a suitable place for this? I am
> not sure we can have it in debian/control, debian/control.extra? ugly,
> but can work. and once we get the tools to use it, more people may be
> convinced it belong to the source package.
Well, reality is that we don't need anybody's aproval for using
XS-prefixed fields. I had tried to spark discussion but I learned the
hard way that proposing stuff in d-devel is just a waste of time.
Adding unofficial headers has been done for ages, and the only people
that can be affected in reality are the emdebian people, but then
again, I don't buy the argument that Debian as a whole should adapt to
a single CDD. If they want minimal Sources.gz the reasonable thing is
to trim the generated file. Now that I think of it, I doubt many
embedded devices would download the Sources instead of Packages, and
in that case this discussion becomes moot...
As I said before, having the field in the archive is useful too, and I
don't like the idea of a d/control.extra file too much...
--
Martín Ferrari
Reply to: