-=| Martín Ferrari, Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 09:57:01AM +0200 |=- > 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... Agreed. Then we set it in stone. XS-Upstream-Bug-Tracker is the field. Let's say 'rt.cpan.org' is the value for RT. Now someone(tm) has to populate it (and check for exceptions like WWW-Mechanize) and write the tool :) -- dam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature