Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
>
> Probably.
> >
> > If so, then I think it is far more effective to change dpkg's default
> > behaviour so that it does include these fields, rather than requiring
> > an explicit flag -isp.
> >
> Dpkg can't put them in if the information is not available in the control
> file.
But it doesn't put them in, even if the information is in the control
file, unless you give it the -isp flag.
>From "man dpkg-gencontrol":
-is, -ip, -isp
Include the Section and Priority fields for this
package from the main source control file in the
binary package control file being generated. Usu?
ally this information is not included here, but
only in the .changes file. -isp includes both
fields, -is only the Section and -ip only the Pri?
ority.
All my packages have section and priority information in the control
file, but only three packages call dpkg-gecontrol -isp, because I
never saw a reason to care one way or another. Only those three have
the information in their deb files.
If we all agree that putting this information in the binary packages
is a good thing, then I'd say it is much better to change the default
in dpkg, than to have every maintainer check every rules file.
The packaging manual also has a paragraph about this:
These fields may appear in binary package control files, in which case
they provide a default value in case the Packages files are missing
the information. dpkg and dselect will only use the value from a .deb
file if they have no other information; a value listed in a Packages
file will always take precedence. By default dpkg-genchanges does not
include the section and priority in the control file of a binary
package - use the -isp, -is or -ip options to achieve this effect.
By now I'm really curious about the reason :-)
Richard Braakman
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
