Re: Decision on leaving upstream tar files untouched?
> > I have determined by reading the lists that we have a consensus that
> > the original, unmodified source tar archive should be part of the
> > source package wherever possible. Our V.P. engineering seems to be in
> > agreement with this. The changes should be made to the policy manual and
> > the programs involved if they have not already been made.
I have the following desires (as VP-Eng) with regard to source packaging:
- Consistancy says a a lot: The file names stored on the archive should
all have a consistant format. Of course, since the upstream names
are not consistant, you can unpack "package_1.0" and get "package1.0/",
which is annoying but the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.
- It's easy for the developer: There should be as few "hoops" to jump
through as possible. A developer should be able to download original
source, add the debian/* files, and build a package. Renaming direct-
ories is a pain but bearable.
So, I guess that boils down to an agreement with (what I understand as)
the "unmodified source tar archive being part of the source package wherever
possible".
> I'm very sceptical that this the right time for this change. I don't see
> that the benefits would compare to the effort need to change all our
> packages.
Now is a very wrong time for this change. We can deal with cosmetic
changes like this after the release of 1.3 (or at least wait until after
the freeze and put new source in "hamm").
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generated by Signify v1.01. For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/
Reply to: