Hello everybody, Le Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:04:56PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:03:57PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > The substvars approach sounds good to me. I think I'd use it quite a lot, > > > specially in libraries. > > > > That, however, does not solve the problem of how to access a source > > package description from infrastructure tools such as DDPO, the PTS, > > etc.
Moreover, debhelper does not check debian/substvars (at least it did not a couple of monthes ago), but debian/<binary-package-names>.substvars, so the source description would have to be in an unexpected place (or a bug should be reported on debhelper). > The sensible answer is putting this information in the .dsc and thus in > the Sources files. But it means that the file would get somewhat bigger > and it might meant again supplementary changes in the infrastructutre if > people want to see those descriptions translated (but I'm not convinced > we need translations on Sources, users of those are mostly developers > contrary to Packages). In the long term, we could aim at separating the dpkg meta-data, like the Source, Package, Architecture, Depends, etc. fields, from the archive meta-data, like the Vcs-*, DM-Upload-Allowed, Section, Priority, etc. fields. All the Debian system is aptable anyway, so the Description could be also be considered archive meta-data without information loss. Unfortunately, this is perhaps inconvenient for third-party packages. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20100303093955.gb19...@kunpuu.plessy.org
