Hi! On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 17:28:54 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009, Colin Watson wrote: > > In general I think handling this in dpkg-genchanges is > > just the wrong place for it; other scripts mention Closes and so need to > > handle Launchpad-Bugs-Fixed as well. > > That might be true but I'm not sure I want all those references > to that field everywhere. We should better support custom vendor-specific > fields...
Right, another one I've not been entirely comfortable with is the Dm-Upload-Allowed field, which is pretty Debian specific. > I understand. Another approach that avoids this pitfall could be > to add one hook that exports meta-information about vendor-specific > fields such as where the field can be found (debian/control, > dpkg-parsechangelog), where the field must be output (Source, Binary, > Changes) and at what position (after/before an official field) it should > appear. > > Then the "upstream" code would simply use that data structure to update > its list of fields and the parsing logic. > > Populating the field with a value would still require another separate > hook but at least vendors could add new fields in their meta-information > without all the warnings. Yeah! That's something I've been considering for some time now for the “upstream” side, it would make the current code cleaner, and would not imply modifying several places when adding support for a new field. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
