Bug#697433: Is the Package-List field necessary for uploads ?

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
retitle 697433 New fields Package-List and Package-Type.
usertags 697433 normative discussion
thanks

Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
> 
> I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
> the valid package types.  There's already a Package-Type field for that
> (defaults to deb and only seems to be used in d/control in the source
> package).

Hi Ansgar,

thanks for the information, I did not know the Package-Type field.  Is there a
place where it is documented ?

With the addition of Package-Type, the description of Package-List would be
as follows:

          <p>
            Multiline field listing all the packages that can be built from
            the source package, considering every architecture.  The first line
            of the field value is empty.  Each one of the next lines describe
            one binary package, by listing its name, type, section and priority
            separated by spaces.  See the
            <qref id="f-Package-Type">Package-Type</qref> field for a list of
            package types.
          </p>

I have one more question about Package-List: will it always list only binary
packages, or can it also list source packages as suggested when the field was
proposed ?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan