Guillem Jover wrote: > Well then there's also the argument that there's no point in having it > in the source control either, it could be inferred from the section. > But those seem quite weak and specific ways to do so.
Determining a file's type from its extension is "weak and specific"? Tell that to /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.p*. Tell that to everyone who has run dpkg -i *.deb and managed to not accidentially dpkg -i *.a (both ar files after all). > Anyway, I don't think that'd be clean, and we might want to use that > field for other package types in the future (translation debs, or > debugging debs come to mind). You're designing for use cases that are not yet clear, and ignoring the current use case. > I mentioned I'd implement it that way one year ago (or so) on #d-b, Um, all I got from your communication on this subject was that you would make it an official field, not that you would put it *in* the binary package. > and no one seemed to oppose, and I requested comments on the patch > implementing this again on #d-b few days before committing. That does > not mean that decision could not be changed, but I don't see a good > reason to do so, the current implementation seems cleaner anyway. If you cared so much about our opinion that you requested comments twice before, why are you continually ignoring our opinion now, and continually re-closing this bug report? -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
