>>> 1) Upstream ships the binary in the source tree, I suppose I should ask >>> him to remove it in the future (lintian also tells this). >> >> I did a quick package for vinux until this makes it back from debian to >> ubuntu and vinux. I just deleted the binary in the debian packaging >> branch I had, its sort of a hack, but simple solution if he wants to >> ship a binary. Ok, so that is what I implemented in the current GIT. > That's the way I'm using for java packages which insist on shipping .jar > files. Shipping a .orig.tar.gz different from upstream is not really a > problem, when the origin is well known in the Debian git repository. I am not sure if I understand this correctly. Do you mean that I import the original tar and do the "git rm" on the binary, as I understand from the comment above? But then we still ship the original tar, right? Or should I really ship a different .orig.tar.gz (actually, a .bz2)? As far as I understand debian policy such a removal after unpacking wouldn't really warrant a deviating tar. (Not sure how git handles this case). I hope I can update the git today with the team as maintainer and an improved udev rules (this is what I am going to look into now). Can somebody (possibly willing to sponsor) have a look at what I cocooned up until now? Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature