On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:29:13 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > here is a new version trying to addres Simon's and Guillem's comments. > @@ -2671,6 +2671,7 @@ Package: libc6 > <item><qref id="f-Description"><tt>Description</tt></qref> (mandatory)</item> > <item><qref id="f-Homepage"><tt>Homepage</tt></qref></item> > <item><qref id="built-using"><tt>Built-Using</tt></qref></item> > + <item><qref id="f-Package-Type"><tt>Package-Type</tt></qref></item> > </list> > </p> > > @@ -2751,6 +2752,7 @@ Package: libc6 > <item><qref id="f-VCS-fields"><tt>Vcs-Browser</tt>, <tt>Vcs-Git</tt>, et al.</qre > <item><qref id="f-Standards-Version"><tt>Standards-Version</tt></qref> (recommend > <item><qref id="sourcebinarydeps"><tt>Build-Depends</tt> et al</qref></item> > + <item><qref id="f-Package-List"><tt>Package-List</tt></qref> (recommended)</item> > <item><qref id="f-Checksums"><tt>Checksums-Sha1</tt> > and <tt>Checksums-Sha256</tt></qref> (mandatory)</item> > <item><qref id="f-Files"><tt>Files</tt></qref> (mandatory)</item> > @@ -3801,6 +3803,34 @@ Checksums-Sha256: > </taglist> > </p> > </sect1> > + > + <sect1 id="f-Package-List"> > + <heading><tt>Package-List</tt></heading> > + > + <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 describes > + one binary package, by listing its name, type, section and priority > + separated by spaces. Fifth and subsequent space-separated items > + may be present and parsers must allow them. See the > + <qref id="f-Package-Type">Package-Type</qref> field for a list of > + package types. > + </p> > + </sect1> > + > + <sect1 id="f-Package-Type"> > + <heading><tt>Package-Type</tt></heading> > + > + <p> > + Simple field containing a word indicating the type of package: > + <tt>deb</tt> for binary packages and <tt>udeb</tt> for micro binary > + packages. Other types not defined here may be indicated. In > + source package control files, the <tt>Package-Type</tt> field > + should be omitted instead of giving it a value of <tt>deb</tt>, as > + this value is assumed for paragraphs lacking this field. > + </p> > + </sect1> > </sect> Seconded. Thanks, Guillem
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature