On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 09:07:19 +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:29:13 +0900 > Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> wrote: > > By the way, isn't "Package-Type: udeb" completely redundant with "Section: > > debian-installer" ? > > Different purposes.
Right. Where using Section in general should be considered fragile, we switched away from it for base for a reason too. > udeb is a file format, allowed to break ftp-master checks which would > reject a deb from the same upload. Section, if it's anything at all > nowadays, is an arbitrary label within the generated Packages file. The > Package-Type field determines that file format when dpkg-deb builds the > file, so is far more important than Section. Unfortunately that's not true, as Package-Type does not get exported to the binary package control file. See #452273 and #575059 for a longish and painful discussion of the issue. I guess dak uses some kind of heuristic to catalogue them. > If anything is redundant, it's Section - and not just when it is set > to debian-installer, every where. (If we finally decide to drop > Section, can we also merge Priority: extra and Priority: optional too? > That would be saying goodbye to a raft of override bugs / checks). Now that you mention this, it makes me think that switching from Section to Package-Type, in addition to all other advantages I listed on those bug reports, would actually reduce space at the same time (7 bytes). Section: debian-installer Package-Type: udeb But then, I don't think I've got the motivation to try to properly integrate udeb support in dpkg proper again, given the previous experience... Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130112142143.ga2...@gaara.hadrons.org
