Re: proposal: pseudo source packages
David Frey wrote:
: [about xforms_0.81...]
: > xforms_0.81.tar.gz
: > xforms_0.81.dsc
: >For the first 4 files it's ok. But the latter? Would somebody mind,
: >if I'd remove the debian/ from xforms_0.81.tar.gz and create a
: >xforms_0.81.orig.tar.gz and then the diffs for the debian changes
: I'm really against the proposal of pseudo-source packages. If you
: don't have the source, it's useless to upload an essentially empty
Hm .., .orig.tar.gz isn't really empty. It would contain the unmodified
binaries (i386, m68k) and _no_ debian files.
And I until a new upstream version of xforms will be available, I expect
that all changes will be only done regarding the debian files.
We could source define as `the most original available set of files' ...
: and confuses only potential downloaders. The debian-diff is enough;
: another possibility would be to write an xforms-install package as it was
No, since xforms doesnt seem to have the distribution restrictions as
: done with netscape. Then, the people with non-intel architectures
: would know that the package is useless for them (at the moment) and
: wouldn't need to download
Perhaps the .dsc file could include a hint about this `pseudo'-package.
And we'd need debian versioning of the source files.
(Latter would be nice for others too -- what if I made a mistake
in putting together the package-x.y.orig.tar.gz file? How can I tell
the potential downloader about a new version of my .orig.tar.gz?)
email : firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
pgp : A1 7D F6 7B 69 73 48 35 E1 DE 21 A7 A8 9A 77 92
finger: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org