Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is not documented
- To: Michal Suchanek <[email protected]>
- Cc: Filipus Klutiero <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is not documented
- From: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <[email protected]>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:24:12 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120517132412.GA23563@r500-debian>
- Mail-followup-to: Michal Suchanek <[email protected]>, Filipus Klutiero <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] [email protected]>
- References: <[🔎] [email protected]> <[🔎] [email protected]> <[🔎] [email protected]>
Hello,
On 2012-05-17 13:48, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Admittedly there is no text in social contract about using
> Debian-proprietary formats. And a format only defined by "apt can read
> that" is definitely Debian-proprietary there is no better term for that.
>
> I'd say it's slightly discriminatory against software not part of Debian
> that cannot rely on getting notified when "apt can read that" silently
> changes, there is no document defining what apt should be able to read
> that software authors can rely on to interoperate with apt, one of the
> core Debian tools. Apt in turn relies on open standards like HTTP and
> FTP to interoperate with the rest of the world.
As someone who had to reverse-engineer APT repository format I fully
agree with the above. With one minor addition that some software which
is (non-core) part of Debian suffer from the same problem.
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Reply to: