On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:35:12PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:09:45PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > > 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]: [ upstream debian directory and size of the .diff.gz ] > > > > 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 ...." > > Besides the fact a lot of the cases where upstream tarball has a debian/ > dir, it's because of overlap maintainer & upstream: > it's indeed something upstream needs to decide, but Debian and the > Debian maintainer could (and IMHO should) argue to upstream to not > include debian/ in the original tarball. This is discussion did bring new light how I see the debian directory and what the .diff.gz should show. I'll make the changes outside the debian directory visible. > --Jeroen Cheers Geert Stappers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature