On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 03:12:54PM -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote: > >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. Note that this duplication is a recent change that was *introduced* in the latest version of Policy, so I don't think "doesn't need seconds" is as self-evidently correct as you suggest. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
