Re: RFS: FSlint - File System lint
Yaroslav Halchenko <email@example.com> wrote:
> So I don't see anything which requires debian/ directory to be absent
> from the orig.tar.gz
You are right, there is no such "law". But still it's a bad idea.
> especially if a package maintainer is the upstream.
This isn't an argument for inclusion of the debian directory (will you
release a new upstream version just because you need to change a
build-depends and trigger a rebuild on the Debian buildds?).
> And also I don't see any strict requirement
> (although I understand that it is desired) to don't use native
> versioning schema for not-only-for-debian packages.
I don't see this written out specifically, either, but I think this is
implied. For example, 3.2.1 talks about native packages:
| Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
| especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should
| always use the "YYYYMMDD" format.
> I think that policy/dev-ref is not clear on that at the moment, that is
> why relevant questions come up from time to time.
Yes, but the answers given are always the same: Try to avoid a debian/
directory in the upstream sources. It's in the archives.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)