Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Umm, I have a little problem with this statement, as it > stands. The implication (and perhaps I am mis interpreting this) > seems to be that the policy documents are merely extended > documentation for dpkg and friends; and dpkg can change behaviour and > policy must follow suit. Okay, let me put it another way: I haven't read the actual proposal, but looking at the bug title is makes the naming that we have been using for packages policy. What that patch did was take advantage of that naming so dpkg can check name and version of a package without having to extract it. This drastically speeds it up if you do a recursive scan, especially when cd NFS or cdrom is involved. Since this naming has been used since it was introduced years ago and I would like to take advantage of that. I see this more as documenting what has already been unwritten policy for years. Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgplLL1o4tmZd.pgp
Description: PGP signature