On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:36:56 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> But our users should not be expected to look at control files in
>> order to know what to install, should they?
>>
>> Following this reasoning, we might suggest that policy only states
>> the mandatory fields in control, and any field not covered by
>> policy should just be ignored by our tools... That way, I could put
>> this cool line in my control files:
>>
>> Greetings: Hi mom!
>>
>> and it would parse just fine. And yes, I can ask my mom to go and
>> check if there is something fun in my packaging...
> You can do that now. I don't see what your point is.
> My point, is that policy is describing a field, as being
> implemented, when the tools have not implemented it yet.
Excuse me? Exactly what is described as having been
implemented? The field allows the maintainer to express a
relationship, and people reading the package description to realize
that the relationship exists.
The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement
some functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you
may think, policy is not dpkg documentation).
manoj
--
Money and women are the most sought after and the least known of any
two things we have. The Best of Will Rogers
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
