> --==_Exmh_1296475976P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > Your proposal looks good, but there's already a great source handling
> > system in rpm. I'm *NOT* suggesting to switch to rpm, but I really like
> > rpm's way to handle _source_ packages. We can probably take advantage of
> > a system that is known to already work (maybe not reusing 100% of it, but
> > at least taking the key ideas).
>
> I haven't really looked at RPM, so I'm not sure of what they are doing,
> other than having .SRPM files. I don't think they have separate upstream
> source packages though.
Ok - I just looked at it.
Here's an idea:
the .sdeb package would have a "dependency" on a .upsdeb
So why not also have the option of building .sdeb's based on .srpms?
Then the builder of the .sdeb could upload to master:
- one or more .deb's with the binaries for various architectures
to be placed in the binary directories
- one .sdeb with the Debian modifications
to be placed in the source directories
- one or more .upsdeb's or .srpm's with the upstream sources
to be placed in the source/upstream directories
There's no reason we couldn't use other source package formats
for our upstream sources (Java packages? ActiveX?), as long as
they meet our requirements for "pristine sources" and code-signing.
Essentially, we could turn the Debian packaging system into a
"predator" style system that "eats" other packaging systems.
:-)
Cheers,
- Jim
Attachment:
pgpfekNs_n4uZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature