[ Moving to debian-policy ] Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> Manoj Srivastava wrote: >>> We do not want to have different helper package start inventing >>> a helper specific way of building ddebs, with no clear standard tha >>> they are following. >>> While archive coverage is nice, ensuring that a ddeb is >>> properly defined, and that all the different ways of creating ddebs are >>> consistent, should happen first. >> OK, so you mean I should document the ddeb format (which is that of >> .deb packages) and possibly include it in policy? That makes sense, if >> you want that I'll propose a patch for policy (note that udebs are not >> documented though). > > But regular packages are not creating udebs; and the whole idea > behind "automated" ddeb creation is that the ./debian/rules file > optionally creates ddebs. Since this affects the majority of packages, > I think we need to be clear up front about ddeb creation.
I've documented the .ddeb format in the wiki page [1] ("DDeb Format", which is
short since the format is basically that of .debs). Do we really need this to be
documented in policy?
Also, does anybody see a problem with adding .ddebs to the .changes file (in
Files and *-Checksums), when they are not in debian/control? It seems to me like
that's not a policy violation, but I could be wrong.
Best regards,
Emilio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
