On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 15:36 +0200, Eddy Petrişor wrote: > 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
I have come around to seeing that. So the rest of my musing has to do with the inconsistency of having multiple classification systems, not the particular constraints that appear to be inherent in D-I and 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. I did warn you that my question was naive. :) But yes, I have a general idea what udebs are for. > So having an X- header in the udeb will > not prevent the deb to have an associated debtags tag. I'm aware that they can differ. Was my suggestion that such X- headers be defined in terms of debtags too subtle? Couldn't the classification quite easily reside in debtags, and the X- headers be set based on the debtags tags? > > 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? One springs to mind: communication between users and developers about the classification. If the X- header in the udeb is the *sole* place where this classification is stored, the classification is a bit obscure. Only the D-I team itself, plus a handful of people here are likely to know about it. On the other hand, if there is a tag, and the X-header in the udeb is set based on the tag, it is clearer to all people examining Debian's packages which games are in D-I. This facilitates decision-making and teamwork. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
