On 2/17/06, Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:48 +0200, Eddy Petrişor wrote: > > udeb definition, and there is no need for D-I to have such a huge > > sledge hammer in order to break the tiny (vaporware) issue of game > > loading > > Indulge me another moment, and then I'll shut up. Aren't we just > talking about one package header vs. another? I just don't see the
No > point in a new "X-" header just to flag this one aspect of game packages > that could just as easily be implemented as a tag. Or if it is a > "sledgehammer" as you say, The sledgehammer is debtags itself, not the actual tag; no user will need without D-I an udeb (at least not one thatknows what he's doing ;-), only the installer will use udebs the binary udeb package can have different tags than the binary deb, with no problems; please document yourself about the purpose of udebs, you will understand better. So having an X- header in the udeb will not prevent the deb to have an associated debtags tag. > I'm assuming a user > might care about locating the subset of packages flagged as D-I game > material outside of the context of doing an actual install. I simply can't imagine that scenario. What would be the purpose? -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein