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

[DEP 12]: Why debian/upstream and not debian/control.

Le Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:29:13AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >  The source package control files and some of their derivatives are currently
> >  used to document the URL of the home page of the work that is packaged
> >  ("upstream").  However, this approach is hard to extend to other information
> >  describing upstream, because the size of the control files has to be limited
> >  according to the limited power of some systems running Debian.
> This DEP-12 seems to exist because of this assumption. Is it true that
> everything from debian/control must end up in the Packages files?

It is technically possible to add arbitrary user-defined fields in source
package control files (debian/control), to document the upstream work.
However, it is not the main purpose of this file, which focuses on the
description of the source and binary packages.

I think that it is preferrable to keep separate the information related to the
packaging and the information related to upstream.  For instance, it reduces
the possibility of confusions about the URLs to version control systems (source
package or upstream sources ?).  It also facilitates the work of those who are
interested in the upstream metadata only.  Lastly, it is a way to avoid
disturbing the work of the developers who are not interested in this proposal,
by refraining to target a core file of our source packages.

In our effort of collecting bibliographic information for the scientific Pure
Blends, we are currently writing the metadata in the source packages
themselves, in a file called debian/upstream.  Whether it should really be in
the source package itself or outside can be discussed, but I would like this
question to be out of the scope of DEP 12, and focus this DEP on the format.

Have a nice week-end,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: