Is it a technical requirement (of dpkg, apt, and/or dak), that packages be
named ${pkgname}_${version}_${arch}.${ext} (${pkgname}_${version}.${ext} for
source), or merely (or mostly) policy?
I note that dpkg-deb and dpkg-source name files correctly, in normal use at
least, and that jennifer (of dak) enforces correct naming. I also note that
the extensions of the files constituting a source package (dsc, orig.tar.gz,
etc.) is important.
But the package name, version, and architecture is of course written down in
the various control files, and the file names are listed in the Packages and
Sources files that apt downloads. So as long as name collisions can be
avoided (for example in simple repositories holding just one version and
architecture of a package at a time), the file name technically shouldn't
matter, should it?
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgp8Q8EA3u9Yl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
