Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
[History of thread:
Please stick to debian-devel when responding - reply-to set]
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:30:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I answer on debian-med only to avoid adding to the confusion.
I also consider the mail at debian-med list as improperly placed because
it does not have anything to do with the scope of the Debian Med team
but rather expresses your opinion about how upstream could / should
handle its source tarball layout in connection to available tools inside
Debian. I wonder what other developers might think (reply-to set to
debian-devel). If I relay on our official advise to upstream the
personal opinion you are expressing below is in contrast what the Wiki
says. If others might share your opinion we should change the
> My opinion is that it has always been a fallacy to criticize upstream for
> having debian directories. Most problems with upstream debian directories are
> a consequence of upstream being unavailable to fix any bug at all, rather than
> something specific to this directory.
> In line with this, I also think that the approach taken in the 3.0 (quilt)
> format, to discard the debian directory completely, is a total regression.
> Luckily, we can use the format 1.0 when no other special feature is needed.
> The format 3.0 (native) is also quite handy.
> For the packages that I started and on which I am still a major contributor, I
> would like Upstream to include a debian directory in his source tarballs.
> Other developers may dislike it for their package, and this is a choice that I
I consider it reasonable if a package is team maintaines we should
either stick to general Debian recommendations or override this in our
team policy in case there might be reached some consensud about this.