Le mercredi 04 mai 2022 à 10:12 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> writes: > > > I plan to add support for 'XB-Popcon-Reports: no' to popularity- > > contest. > > This allows to build packages with private names that will not be > > reported to popcon, by adding 'XB-Popcon-Reports: no' to > > debian/control. > > This must not used by packages in the debian archive, however that > > can > > be used by packages generators that create packages with randomly > > generated names (package names that include 128bit uuid for > > examples) or > > by organizations that generates packages for internal use whose > > name > > include the organization name. > > > The rationale is that the only info really leaked is the package > > name, > > so it only make sense to hide a package if every system that have > > it > > installed are also hiding it, so it is better to make it a property > > of > > the package than of the system. > > > Any comment ? > > This sounds like a good idea to me. >
I do see the need. > Using an additional binary package control field felt weird to me, > and I wanted to believe there was some better place to put this > information rather than introducing yet another boolean control > field, but after thinking about it for a bit, I couldn't think of any > better place that made much sense. If there's a growing list of boolean control fields, isn't it the indication that some sort of tagging system might make more sense? Instead of three lines: XB-Popcon-Reports: no Rules-Requires-Root: yes Pants-Need-Washing: yes The same package could use a single line: Tags: no-popcon-reports, rules-needs-root, pants-need-washing (aside: by default rules doesn't need root... that would make one not- very-useful line less in so many packages!) Some of our tools might provide easy queries to the feature: $ apt-cache has-tag rules-needs-root my-beautiful-package $ apt-cache list-tags my-beautiful-package Cheers, J.Puydt