(0021571)
Eric NOULARD (developer)
2010-07-30 07:21

I think indeed it is the role of CPack to help in producing
better quality packages.

What is the problem with providing CPACK_PACKAGE_CONTACT ?
If you don't want to give one then

set(CPACK_PACKAGE_CONTACT "private")

and this will please CPackDeb.

(0021572)
Olaf van der Spek (reporter)
2010-07-30 07:24

Having a contact address in my private packages does not make them higher quality.
So for me it's extra work with no gain.

(0021573)
Eric NOULARD (developer)
2010-07-30 07:42

You are right Olaf,

The trouble is enhancing your ease of use may lower the quality
of package for others.

May be we can add a global CPACK_PACKAGE_EASY toggle
which would indicate to [all] specific generators
to be more "tolerant" on usually
required fields and provide reasonable default values?

Or may be you have a better solution?

I'll wait opinion for other but being more tolerant and generate
non-conforming packages does not seems a good "general" behavior.

Note that on another bug report 11050
(I'll add a link with this one) you ask for a more
conforming naming scheme :-)

(0021574)
Olaf van der Spek (reporter)
2010-07-30 07:48

What Debian tools actually use this field? I've been using Debian for years but I can't think of any tools that use this field.

> Or may be you have a better solution?

Maybe a warning instead of an error?

> Note that on another bug report

I don't see how that's related.
Having architecture in the name is necessary if you're building for both x86 and x64 or for multiple architectures in general.

(0021575)
Eric NOULARD (developer)
2010-07-30 08:25

>> Or may be you have a better solution?
> Maybe a warning instead of an error?

OK noted.

>> Note that on another bug report
> I don't see how that's related.
> Having architecture in the name is necessary if you're building for both x86 and x64 or for multiple architectures in general.

Because it's about conformance to Debian standard.

(0021576)
Olaf van der Spek (reporter)
2010-07-30 08:27

> Because it's about conformance to Debian standard.

Having the architecture in the file name is not (just) about conforming to that standard.

Don't forget this one:
What Debian tools actually use this field? I've been using Debian for years but I can't think of any tools that use this field.

(0024184)
Eric NOULARD (developer)
2010-12-15 14:21

Closing without fixing because.
CMake should makes it easier to build "Debian package".

The message is clear and the fix easy to implement.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2010-07-29 06:51	Olaf van der Spek	New Issue
2010-07-30 07:21	Eric NOULARD	Note Added: 0021571
2010-07-30 07:24	Olaf van der Spek	Note Added: 0021572
2010-07-30 07:42	Eric NOULARD	Note Added: 0021573
2010-07-30 07:42	Eric NOULARD	Relationship added	related to 0011050
2010-07-30 07:48	Olaf van der Spek	Note Added: 0021574
2010-07-30 08:25	Eric NOULARD	Note Added: 0021575
2010-07-30 08:27	Olaf van der Spek	Note Added: 0021576
2010-12-15 11:13	David Cole	Assigned To	=> Eric NOULARD
2010-12-15 11:13	David Cole	Status	new => assigned
2010-12-15 14:21	Eric NOULARD	Note Added: 0024184
2010-12-15 14:21	Eric NOULARD	Status	assigned => closed
2010-12-15 14:21	Eric NOULARD	Resolution	open => won't fix
2010-12-15 14:21	Eric NOULARD	Fixed in Version	=> CMake 2.8.4

Notes
(0021571) Eric NOULARD (developer) 2010-07-30 07:21	I think indeed it is the role of CPack to help in producing better quality packages. What is the problem with providing CPACK_PACKAGE_CONTACT ? If you don't want to give one then set(CPACK_PACKAGE_CONTACT "private") and this will please CPackDeb.

(0021572) Olaf van der Spek (reporter) 2010-07-30 07:24	Having a contact address in my private packages does not make them higher quality. So for me it's extra work with no gain.

(0021573) Eric NOULARD (developer) 2010-07-30 07:42	You are right Olaf, The trouble is enhancing your ease of use may lower the quality of package for others. May be we can add a global CPACK_PACKAGE_EASY toggle which would indicate to [all] specific generators to be more "tolerant" on usually required fields and provide reasonable default values? Or may be you have a better solution? I'll wait opinion for other but being more tolerant and generate non-conforming packages does not seems a good "general" behavior. Note that on another bug report 11050 (I'll add a link with this one) you ask for a more conforming naming scheme :-)

(0021574) Olaf van der Spek (reporter) 2010-07-30 07:48	What Debian tools actually use this field? I've been using Debian for years but I can't think of any tools that use this field. > Or may be you have a better solution? Maybe a warning instead of an error? > Note that on another bug report I don't see how that's related. Having architecture in the name is necessary if you're building for both x86 and x64 or for multiple architectures in general.

(0021575) Eric NOULARD (developer) 2010-07-30 08:25	>> Or may be you have a better solution? > Maybe a warning instead of an error? OK noted. >> Note that on another bug report > I don't see how that's related. > Having architecture in the name is necessary if you're building for both x86 and x64 or for multiple architectures in general. Because it's about conformance to Debian standard.

(0021576) Olaf van der Spek (reporter) 2010-07-30 08:27	> Because it's about conformance to Debian standard. Having the architecture in the file name is not (just) about conforming to that standard. Don't forget this one: What Debian tools actually use this field? I've been using Debian for years but I can't think of any tools that use this field.

(0024184) Eric NOULARD (developer) 2010-12-15 14:21	Closing without fixing because. CMake should makes it easier to build "Debian package". The message is clear and the fix easy to implement.