Am Samstag, den 17.04.2010, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > I have written small release-info scripts (debian-release-info, > > > ubuntu-release-info) for querying information about the distributions' > > > releases. For example you can query the codename for the latest stable > > > release (or latest development release) of the corresponding > > > distribution. You can do your queries based on dates. > > > > Do we need so much information? > > > > I wondered if the raw data (list of codename, current codename) should not > > be part of the vendors files in /etc/dpkg/origins/* (so part of > > base-files). > > I don't think that would be a good idea. base-files is essential. > In general, features which are not essential (like historical data) > should not be put in an essential package, otherwise we start to rely > on them "because they are in an essential package" and they end up > being essential. That's a valid point. This data is not important enough to be essential. Am Freitag, den 16.04.2010, 21:15 +0200 schrieb Raphael Hertzog: > The downside is that you would not get all ubuntu codenames in Debian > but Ubuntu would have all Debian codenames and all Ubuntu codenames > (unless Debian includes the Ubuntu vendor file). The codenames of both distributions should be available for both distributions. > On the plus side, you would be able use dpkg-vendor to query the data > and base-files is already a package that has to be updated for each > release anyway. And there's a perl API ready to use to query the vendor > information. Having the data and scripts in dpkg-dev instead of devscripts would be possible, too. BTW, I am searching for a Perl hacker, who can port the Python script into Perl (to reduce the dependencies). -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil