Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>]

On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > Technically it does not matter, correct. But for the same reason
> > there is also no good reason to make it the same as the debian linux
> > images source package.
> >
> > And as it is factually incorrect I still don't like it. It would very
> > simply result in incorrect info if people query their system using
> > tools like grep-dpkg, or even if they just just view the package
> > info.
[...]
> so i still miss your point why make deb-pkg shouldn't show that too!

See quoted text above. Even if a binary package _can_ be built from the 
linux-2.6 source package using deb-pkg, in almost all cases that will 
_not_ be the case. For me that in itself is sufficient reason not to 
set "Source: linux-2.6". It very simply does not reflect the truth.

> btw this patch also fixes wrong section behaviour of make deb-pkg.

Ah, yes. I forgot about that. I do agree with that part of the patch.

With the recent restructuring of the archive the correct section for 
kernel packages would be "kernel" and not "admin", but for deb-pkg we 
probably should postpone that change for a few years as "kernel" is not 
yet valid for stable and oldstable.