Re: Source directory name
> Michael> I'd like to name the modules source file modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz,
> Michael> the binary modules_2.0.0-8_i386.deb and the directory in which the
> Michael> source is stored IMO should be modules_2.0.0.
> As the saying goes: You can't have the pie and eat it.
> There are conflicting goals: either we want to make clear that upstream
> sources are unaltered (which we agree is a good principle) and therefore name
> a source file modules-2.0.tar.gz or we strive for consistency and name it
> modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz which looks as if we have altered the sources.
> But I very much like the idea of renaming the directory. After all, it
> contains pristine upstream material _plus_ our patches.
This is not how I understand the upcoming source handling. I think the
only diff made to the original sources is that they unpack in a proper named
directory. The patches are applied later but aren't part of the sources
files distributed with debian which will be named like
hello_1.3.4.orig.tar.gz (IIMNM).
Erick
Reply to: