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

Bug#998165: debian-policy: document and allow Description in the source paragraph



Hi!

Reply follows inline,

Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 01:20:14PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> In that case, returning to Mattia's patch, it is probably not correct to
>> say that the source Description is relevant for all binary packages,
>> because perhaps the substvar is used for some but not all of them?
>
> Mh, we probably we'll need Guillem to confirm/deny this, but here I
> really really was trying to not even mention on the substvar thing.
> That to me feels like an implementation detail on how to fill a binary
> package Description (that can already be accomplished in several other
> way).
> In my mind I was mostly focusing on being able to provide a
> **description for the source package** (that is, then, relevant to
> everything that source package builds); said description being picked up
> by a substvar and used again later on is more like a nicety that comes
> after describing the source first.
>

The following is only Informational level, but the existence of
Lintian's "duplicate-long-description" tag suggests that producing
duplicate bin:Descriptions in bin:libfoo and bin:foo packages is not
ideal, thus a straight copy from src:Description is not ideal.  I'm not
sure what the best way to solve this is, but substvar looks like a good
solution.  Alternatively, simply appending "\n\n$binary_pkg\n" to the
src:Description when generating the bin:pkg Descriptions would do the
trick.  Maybe there's an even better way?

> Should I perhaps express my intention differently?  For example:
>
> |+When used in a source control file in the general paragraph (i.e., the first
> |+one, for the source package), the text in this field is used to describe the
> |+source package itself, and consequently all of the binary packages
> |+built from itself.
>

This appears to conflict with the "duplicate-long-description" tag.  Of
course, Lintian isn't Policy, but I hope most will agree that it's worth
considering this precedent in some way.

Regards,
Nicholas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: