Re: Proposal: Merge Package Name Parts (Sec. 5.6.1 and 5.6.7)
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Julien Cristau<email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:57:04 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
>> Oh. Interesting. I was (clearly) unaware of that. How recently was
>> this? What was the reasoning behind it?
> I think this is the part where you do your homework.
You're right of course.
I found this bug, and I'm not sure if it's the one that was alluded to:
But it seems like that was there to remove ambiguity of the name. What
I meant for the sake of maintainability is to just point one to the
other, as in:
The Package field follows the same conventions and restrictions as the
Source field. Although in practice I don't know if the duplication was
put there for a good /reason/. On the other hand, having one refer to
the other like that implies that both fields follow a common
convention and thus can be parsed the same way. Hopefully dpkg takes
that in the form of implementing a single subroutine to do the