> George Danchev <danc...@spnet.net> writes: > > > Okay, that sounds reasonable, provided all non-user-defined fields are > > standard, or otherwise illegal. Another standard field (i.e. non-X[BSC] > > ) I found is `Bugs'; seems they are hinting someone or something like > > BTS or LP, though I'm not exactly sure if it is good candidate for reuse > > [1]. I also sorted packages on per field basis [2] (most interesting > > fields, not all). > > Bugs is sort of an interesting case since there's no reason to ever > include it in a Debian package, but it's part of the package format and > people making packages for non-Debian distributions should be aware of > it. reportbug honors it when directing bugs to a different BTS. > > I wouldn't mind seeing it in Policy, although of course Debian packages > shouldn't use it since we want to use our BTS for everything and that's > the default.
Candidates for policy so far: http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/4policy (Multi-Arch field added) To be corrected to use Vcs-* (I'll file bugs further): http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/X-Vcs-Browser http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/X-Vcs-Svn The rest are user-defined fields (X[SBC]) which are possible candidates to be documented in devref or wiki.d.o, since they seem more volatile to me: http://people.debian.org/~danchev/survey/sorted/ However, I couldn't be precisely sure about the intentions of their creators, possible values, and parties supposed to honor or consume them as well. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
