Re: non-pristine sources under pool/
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:21:39PM +1000, Chris Leishman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:51:34PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> <snip>
> > > It looks like debians tarball has been repacked, it extract bash to
> > > bash-2.05b.orig whereas upstream extract to just bash-2.05b, all the file
> > > stats are different as well, i dont know why it was done though.
>
> So, are we concluding that a package really should use the pristine
> upstream tarball as the "original" source?
It's usually a good idea if possible.
> If so:
>
> 1. Should the file name be changed to contain .orig (is this required?)
The tarball itself must be renamed to <package>_<version>.orig.tar.gz,
assuming you're using the non-native source format.
> 2. Is it a bug if a package doesn't use a pristine upstream tarball?
I don't think so. There are frequently good reasons for it (e.g. the
removal of non-DFSG-free code). If you file bugs about this then be
prepared to have them closed with "yes, but it has to be this way".
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: