Re: Bug#521810: debian-policy: Document user defined fields starting with X-
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Nils Rennebarth <nils.rennebarth@funkwerk-ec.com> writes:
> >
> > > Usually, unknown fields are iggnored by the debian packaging system. To
> > > avoid conflicts of user defined fields with field that may be used by
> > > debian in the future, we suggest to use field names starting with X- (so
> > > you need to put X[BCS]-X-foo into the control file) which are guaranteed
> > > to never conflict with future official fields.
> >
> > Is this because the X in front of [BCS] is stripped off when the field is
> > copied into the resulting binary or source package?
>
> Yes.
Is there any reason why we can't transition official X-* headers to
real * headers as they become widely used (and when they're inshrined
in policy)?
Some transition period would be necessary, and dpkg-gencontrol could
be patched to automatically rename the X-* headers to * for the
transition period (and tools that use the header should look at both
X-* and * headers[0]).
We really don't have the issue of email, because we have a relatively
consistent set of tools that actually generate control (for non-Manoj
developers anyway[1]).
Don Armstrong
0: I submit that tools that examine the headers should let the *
header override the X-* header when they're being written, unless
there's some extraordinary reason not to do so.
1: Manoj may even use dpkg-gencontrol now...
--
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it.
-- Richard Feynman
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: