Re: phasing out override files
On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Petr Cech <cech@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> spake forth:
> On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 01:07:11AM -0700 , Mike Markley wrote:
> > My two ideas:
> > 1. Perhaps the override file entry should simply be made optional, rather
> > than dpkg-scanpackages needing it. If a package is in the override file,
> > its priority/section are overriden. If it's not, then the value used in
> > the control file is considered authoritative. I realize that this means
> > a massive scan for control files when Packages is updated.
>
> debian/control has to be extracted for generation of Packages even now, so
> this is not an issue.
>
> > 2. Perhaps a better implementation would be to auto-generate the overrides
> > file from a real set of overrides (i.e. information differing from what's
> > in the control file), and the packages' control files. This can then be
>
> problem is, that not all packages include this information in their control
> file
Hence, the overrides would be in place for packages that don't :).
> > done at a lesser enough frequency to keep from absolutely destroying
> > master with scans for control file contents - the archive tools could
> > continue using the overrides file; the file would just be generated in
> > a different way now.
>
> dinstall would have to extract control - not a big deal, it's already running
> gpg on the files, so they are cached and extraction of a small file would not
> matter
Cool. I stand corrected then. My first idea's feasible.
--
Mike Markley <mike@markley.org>
PGP: 0xA9592D4D 62 A7 11 E2 23 AD 4F 57 27 05 1A 76 56 92 D5 F6
GPG: 0x3B047084 7FC7 0DC0 EF31 DF83 7313 FE2B 77A8 F36A 3B04 7084
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
- Scotty
Reply to: