[Stefano Zacchiroli]
> To fix that, it seems to me that the most reasonable solution
> advanced in the thread is to add a proper "Description" field to
> source package stanzas. Then, in addition, we can setup an automatic
> substvar, whose content is the source description, that can then be
> use
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 02:31:10PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> Would Packages file size decrease applying your suggestion?
> Is there any chance to use this change to shrink Packages file size?
No, this proposal is completely orthogonal to that (and IMO should
remain so): we're talking about chang
Hello,
2010/3/10 Stefano Zacchiroli :
> The obvious drawback is that Sources file will increase in size. Given
> that the size will be small compared to Packages file, I personally
> don't see it as a showstopper.
Would Packages file size decrease applying your suggestion?
Is there any chance to
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:58:21PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You completely misparsed my answer/suggestion. My suggestion is to follow
Sorry for not having been clear: I did not misunderstood your
suggestion, in fact ...
> > To fix that, it seems to me that the most reasonable solution adva
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - It is not standardized: substvars are set via custom commands in
> debian/rules and there are thousands ways of setting them. When
> opening a random source package, one would not know where exactly to
> look for the common part of source pac
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > It would be nice to have support for a Description field in the source
> > stanza of debian/control.
So, beside a few notable exceptions, the thread has a bit drifted to a
set of appreciations on the idea of using substvars to fa
6 matches
Mail list logo
