Re: dpkg-repack warnings: what effect?
* Matthias Klose [Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:56:29 +0200]:
> > > I agree that having Python-Version in binary packages is dislikeable.
> > > Out of curiosity, Matthias, would be a DEBIAN/pyversions file able to
> > > provide the same information to pycentral?
^^^^^^^^^^^
> just looking at the Packages (and the Sources) files.
Yeah, I knew this was the reason for putting the info in the headers, I
understand that. But I was only asking if pycentral itself would have
enough with DEBIAN/pyversions, which is different from implying that I'd
rather have pycentral use D/pv at the cost of losing the benefits of
having that info in the Packages file. ;-)
I assume the answer to this question is yes, yes?
Now, I have a sequence of events that have left me puzzled:
- After writing the above, I intended to ask why XB-Python-Version was
necessary in the Packages file, if that information was already in
Sources via XS-Python-Version.
- But then I thought: "d'oh, obvious: XB-P-V must be an _expanded_
version of XS-P-V, with a plain list of python version the package
was built for, and this is much easier to parse than an expresion
with >= and <<, plus only with XS-P-V you can't know e.g. if a
binNMU after dropping 2.3 was successful or not".
- But after that, I quickly discover that my assumption is wrong, and
the archive contains a number of binary packages whose Python-Version
header contains [<=>], and it's in fact the same as P-V in the
source package.
With this, I'm puzzled, since I fail to understand what information you
can obtain from Packages.gz that you can't from Sources.gz? (The point
of this exercise being that it'd be incredibly great if Python-Version
would be only present in source packages, and not in binaries, which
contain DEBIAN/pyversions instead.)
Thanks,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Massive Attack - Group Four
Reply to: