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

Re: Please help a apt ABI break by providing bin-NMUs



>> One feature I asked for in my mail about the long descriptions was
>> having apt-ftparchive split the existing long descriptions out into a
>> seperate file. Is that implemented?
> apt-ftparchive doesn't split out currently, since apt 0.7.25 [1] however it
> is possible to set APT::FTPArchive::LongDescription=0 to remove them
> from the Packages file. In the thread it sounds like there is already some
> magic tool which creates the Translation files and could easily do -en, too.
> apt-ftparchive on the other hand doesn't know anything about translation files
> and I have more or less paused thinking further about implementing it after
> my unanswered email [2] and just added the remove option and do it "my way".
> (download en and a whole lot of other Translation files depending on LC,
> recently also LANGUAGE and of course the Acquire::Translation config-list;
> keeping md5sum as second preimage attacks are a bit too much for a
> LongDescription; keeping the whitelist as is as long as the acquire system
> in apt is as idiotic as it is currently with the todo to give it a renewal)
> Comments are obviously still welcomed.

So right now I (as ftpmaster) have to create the packages files as
normal, then split out the descriptions with a seperate tool, so others
can use them as the english translation. I can not tell apt-ftparchive
"dont bother", as the stuff a-f is writing *is* the current master of
english. (Ie. those taken from the package, and for squeeze this is not
intended to change). Those magic tools are reading them and based on
that the whole rest is processed.

If you could add a mode that does not write them into a packages file
but into a seperate one, in the layout I described back then, that would
rock and save us a lot of time during each dinstall run!

-- 
bye, Joerg
Yeah, patching debian/rules sounds like changing shoes while running the
100 meters track.
  -- Michael Koch


Reply to: