On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I know this is the key issue, that's why the subject of the request is the > only question "Should Package-Type be included in udebs or not?".
Good. > There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, [...] I had gone through that bug report, but it would certainly be helpful if the pros and cons were reiterated in a more concise form. FWICT, they're: Keep P-T: A) Tell what type of deb it is B) No need to special case udeb handling Discard P-T: C) Size D) Current implementation shoves Package-Type into .changes (wrong place; maybe missing an XI- in the control file?) My current understanding: A) Section: and the file extension obviate this to some extent B) udeb is already special cased, so not sure that this is a big problem C) About 10 bytes per udeb; not sure how big of a deal this is (but d-i people say it matters) D) Unfortunatly, this is the only way to currently not include P-T, but this is an implementation detail, and distinct from whether or not it should be included. Don Armstrong -- [T]he question of whether Machines Can Think, [...] is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra "The threats to computing science" http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
