Hi: >From reading sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.7, the package name conventions/restrictions are the exact same.
"Package names must consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric character." (5.6.7) and "Package names must consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric character." (5.6.1) So this means they would be a good candidate to merge together, or for one to reference the other. For example if Section 5.6.7 would say: "Please see Section 5.6.1 for the naming conventions, binary package names follow the same restrictions as their source counterparts" It also means that programs working with those fields can reasonably expect that the syntax accepted by one field (the Source field) will not ever be out of sync from the other (the Package field). And it also means that one won't inadvertently update one while forgetting about the other. As this is a minor change I don't think that it needs seconds, once someone picks it up and pushes it to the master. Cheers, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
