Re: Intent to package pine-src
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I agree with Ian. The .deb file format is expressly for the distribution
> of configured executables (binaries for short). Using this format for
> source distribution is simply asking for trouble.
I don't see any trouble.
> Maybe we need a tarball that contains .dsc, .changes, .diff, and
> .orig.tar.gz all rolled up in one .src file, known to all the necessary
> programs, but to me this isn't necessary.
Well, for many people in debian-user, pine-src is a "must".
> For almost two years now we have distributed source packages as a
> collection of checksum authenticated files with a pgp signed changes file
> containing them. These four files: .dsc, .changes, .diff, and .orig.tar.gz
> comprise the Debian Source Format, as described in the significant
> documentation.
Yes, but remember that two years ago we had not read the license of pine
carefully, and qmail had not been released.
> We do it this way for both DFSG Free as well as for contrib and non-free
> software, so why make an exeption in this case?
Because we want to make easier the retrieving of *certain* source files.
As easy as it is currently to retrieve binary .deb files.
> Retrieval of source from archives is usually done "by hand" but any such
> bulk retrieval should be easy to manage with a script. I take the lack of
> a script to indicate the current relative lack of need. Anyone is welcome
> to prove me wrong by writing such a script ;-)
My point is that the functionality is already built-in in dpkg itself and
we would not have to reinvent the wheel just for this particular case.
> Although few agree with me, I still feel that packaging kernel source in
> .deb format was/is a mistake. The kernel-package-builder package doesn't
> benefit from this packaging style, as far as I can tell and it makes the
> kernel more perculiar than it need be.
>
> Another benefit of this source format that the .deb does not provide is
> the one time only download of orig.tar.gz. Until the upstream version
> changes, one can keep up with the Debian package by only needing to
> download the .diff and .dsc files (typically many orders smaller) to
> create a source tree that will build the current version of the Debian
> package.
Ok, then I will make two packages. One for the .orig.tar.gz file and
another one for the .diff.gz and the .dsc files. This way only the second
one will have to be downloaded for each new release.
> Keep source in Source Format and use the .deb files for what they were
> intended, the distribution of "binary" components.
I *will* keep the source in source format.
I will just create another .deb binary containing the source.
The .deb files were intended to be the binary package format of a free
Unix-clone distribution, Debian. If binaries are not allowed, the .deb
binary format is certainly not suitable for its distribution and we
can perfectly live with an exception.
Moreover, non-free is not officially part of Debian. Why do we have to be
so strict here for the rule of "keeping the source just in the source
package" when there are already packages containing precompiled binaries
in the *source* package (debian/rulkes being just a bunch of cp's)?
Should we remove these from the archive for violating the rule that the
"source is the preferred form to do modifications"?
Please, think of it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNUjBJyqK7IlOjMLFAQF1EwQArwzacKqKEtVMqV8DC41KD8vZLJ9XL0y0
/4H85Fa8gAEPuPww/gPAiwSF2tWfSt8CQLajSOkpf9e7e9sPpdJQUBpZC+Yy5k6w
/qL2t60NQBN63pFvfh1myyJL9gPjiPnrwwvdpccHIiCtzlZgpVQf1A6O8MCazCSK
lH2VM6o6SpU=
=KRY2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: