[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#999598: dpkg-dev: Can we have binary package descriptions back for source uploads?



hi,

(leaving full context for debian-policy@l.d.o)

On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 06:56:24AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.20.9
> 
> Dear dpkg-dev developers,
> 
> One feature that is deeply missed, and which disappered when we moved to
> source only uploads, is the listing of binary package descriptions in
> the email to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org.
> 
> The emails used to have a section like this, listing the short
> description of each binary package:
> 
>   Description: 
>    gdm        - GNOME Display Manager
> 
> I used this to see if a package I never heard about could be interesting
> to check out or not.  After we moved to source only uploads to unstable,
> there is no Description section any more in the emails, and it is a lot
> harder to guess what the odd packages are useful for.
> 
> The email content is simply the uploaded .changes file.
> 
> Would it be possible to adjust the .changes generator to include the
> description of all binary packages listed in d/control, even if none of
> them are included in the upload?

IMO this would only be a clumsy workaround (esp for packages with many binary
package) and we should rather fix the cause:
 
#963524 debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory in .changes on source-only uploads
#998165 debian-policy: document and allow Description in the source paragraph
#998282 Please make Section a required field for the source paragraph in d/control

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998165#19 is a nice example
how this would work in practice.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

If you own several guns but no guitars, you are doing life all wrong.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: