Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
> Seems I missed another file:
> * .changes:
> policy → «upload control file» / «Debian changes file»
> dpkg → «upload control file» / «.changes control file» /
> «Debian .changes file» / «Debian changes file»
[...]
> For changes I think something like the following might be a more clear
> option (and has the minor bonus of aligning perfectly on the first
> words! :), with it mentioning explicitly this is about changes being
> uploaded, and that it is a control file (but I'm not sure I'm entirely
> convinced about it):
> * .changes: «Debian upload changes control files»
[...]
> I've also found instances of «record» and «section» referring to fields
> or stanzas.
[...]
> I also recalled another term that has always seemed very confusing in
> context: «control information files» or «control information area». For
> example in a sentence such as “the control file is a control information
> file in the control information area in a .deb archive”. :) This also
> seems confusing when some of the files in the .deb control member are
> not really “control files” with a deb822(5) format.
> My thinking has been going into calling these as the «metadata files»,
> and being located in either the «metadata part of the .deb archive» or
> explicitly the «control member of the .deb archive», in contrast to the
> filesystem part. In dpkg I'd be eventually switching to meta/metadata
> and fsys/filesystem, from control or info and data. I've added a patch
> with the proposed change, but again nothing set in stone, and I'm again
> open to discussing pros/cons of this.
> Attached the proposals for discussion/review, and I might again have
> perhaps missed instances or similar.
All of these changes seem straightforward and uncontroversial to me, and
there are huge advantages to using consistent terminology between Policy
and dpkg. I have applied all of them for the next Policy release. Thank
you!
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>