Hi, On Fri, 01 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > But ok, we can take some more time to discuss and push it for 1.16.1.
So what should we change to re-enable the field? Given the concerns you raised, we can at least drop the source entry from Package-List. Maybe introduce Priority/Section as new fields in the .dsc although nothing is making use of that information and while I was confortable adding it within an existing field, I'm not convinced it's important enough to add 2 new fields. Concerning the architecture information, I'm not attached to keeping it in the field, but I believe exporting the architecture information would be much more useful than the section/priority (which is mainly interesting for ftpmasters but has few users outside of them). So my vote is rather to keep it in the field. But I'd rather drop it if it can help resolve the discussion sooner, it can always be added later on... we must just define the field as being extendable and that parsers must just ignore supplementary columns. Whatever the decision on the arch column in Package-List, we can still fix the "Architecture" field to include the missing "all" which is wrongly hidden by the "any" (and fix policy accordingly). I have already responded to the concerns of Priority/Section being updated at build time and I argue that it's not important enough to extend the syntax of that field. It still represents the default value of section/priority for most architectures. If such an inconsistency ever arises, it will concern a very small number of packages and the invalid field will only lead to some override disparities message which are easily fixed by the ftpmasters (provided they have extended the overrides to be per-arch). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
