On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:33:49PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> [2005.04.13.1359 +0200]: > > ??? Users of __stable__ won't ever get that piece of software, no > > matter if it goes into unstable, testing, or any other distribution > > you might make up. > > Users of stable can just as well add unstable deb-src links to > sources.list. That's probably even better than pulling the software > from xyz and compiling it in /tmp. Use `apt-get -b source`! > > > Please, do acknowledge that having a debian directory in upstream > > does make sense for a lot of different motives. I acknowledge that having a debian directory in upstream does make sense. One motive is giving users easy to a -dbg package. apt-get source conglomerate cd conglomerate-x.y.z fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us # was not necessery, only for a clean build check debian/rules conglomerate-dbg su -c "dpkg -i ../conglomerate-dbg_x.y.z-n_arch.deb" <screenshot> stappers@bahrain:/usr/src $ zcat conglomerate_0.9.0-1.diff.gz --- conglomerate-0.9.0.orig/debian/changelog +++ conglomerate-0.9.0/debian/changelog @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ -conglomerate (0.7.16-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low +conglomerate (0.9.0-1) unstable; urgency=low - * expecting new upstream version + * new upstream version - -- Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:58:34 +0100 + -- Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:36:18 +0100 conglomerate (0.7.16-1) unstable; urgency=low stappers@bahrain:/usr/src $ </screenshot> > > Maybe it does not > > make sense to distribute it with a release, but putting it in > > a branch, as you said, is too much extra work for upstream. > > sounds like the wrong version control system to me. :) <sarcasme> Yeah, the version control system as an argument to ban the debian directory from upstream. </sarcasme> > > > If he wants to have a debian directory, it's his right as upstream > > to have it. Although it is a good idea to discourage distributing > > it. > > Sure it's his right. I still do not see a reason why it would be > needed upstream. Indeed, a debian directory is _not needed_ upstream. Some how I feel you are fighting against a debian directory in upstream. If you weren't visible at good places, I would have to asked to let upstream decide what goes in the released tarball and to do something else as saying "others should not ...." Cheers Geert Stappers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature