Re: tetex-3.0 and the repackaging of the orig.tar.gz files
On 21.11.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
Hi,
[.orig.tar.gz is not original and the transition.]
>
> There is, however, the problem that we loose our CVS history of the
> files in the upstream tarball. For example, the Changelog file will
> appear in CVSROOT/tetex-base/ChangeLog as if it was a new file,
> with no connection with its old incarnation in
> CVSROOT/tetex-base/texmf/ChangeLog - and the same for every file.
>
> I think, however, that this is not really a problem, because we do
> not change those files, only copy them to the right places (of
> course we'd have to change some patches, but this is below
> debian/). The history of those files is just a history of "imported
> upstream version N.n.nn", nothing more. The only thing a newcomer
> would have to learn is that upstream versions prior to 3.0(-betas)
> are in the Attic, in CVSROOT/tetex-base/texmf.
>
Hmm, a few others packages (like glibc) repack their tar balls using
bz2 and repack them into a .orig.tar.gz. I guess this is not an
option for us, as it would not show an texmf-tree.
I guess, we should keep it the way it is actually. I personally expect
(when doing dpkg-source) only a single subdir and not a collection of
different files. Maybe it is just a personal preference...
> On a related note, I'm wondering whether I should check in my now
> working and installing packages of 2.99.3 on an experimental branch of
> the CVS. This would make it easier to communicate about beta development
> - maybe this is something especially Hilmar could value. It would also
> give me a more regular backup for my work... On the other hand, it
> would mean much more commit messages to this list. At least I find
> myself commiting much more often to my local CVS, and much less
> tested changes, than I try to do with our centralised CVS - and
> this would nearly completely be moved to our centralised CVS. I
> could tag each commit message with [experimental], of course, so
> that everybody who's not interested can easily filter that.
>
> But I think we should upload teTeX-3.0 into experimental rather
> early than too late, anyway, so that people can try compiling it on
> other architectures, test libkpathsea4, etc.
>
Totally agree! I see 2 advantages:
1. dev of packages with a dep on kpathsea3 could start porting to
kpathsea4
2. more bug reports for teTeX 3.0 before release
Especially the first could perhaps lead to an teTeX 3.0 in sarge...
H.
--
Xerox never comes up with anything original.
Reply to: