Re: Problems with the current source packaging scheme

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,

>>"Jim" == Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com> writes:

Lars> * upstream sources not preserved bit-for-bit; need to be repackage,
Lars> which can destroy upstream digital signatures, and makes it more
Lars> difficult to check that .orig.tar.gz and upstream sources are the
Lars> same

Jim> The only reason they currently get repackaged is so that they can
Jim> be easily stored in the archive.  If we just "wrap" them in
Jim> something else, it accomplishes the same objective without being
Jim> so darn destructive.
 
	I think Bruce and Susan had brought up the issue about Debian
 repackaging upstream sources unnecessarily (one may need to change
 dpkg-source to handle, say, make-3.75.tar.gz that unpacks into
 make-3.75, and have the modified Debian sources reside in
 make-3.75.debian/. So, if the upstream version is reasonable, we can
 just use it directly (applies to all packages following GNU archive
 rules).

	We don't need to wrap them (unless I misunderstand what was
 said), just carry the upstream source untouched.

	manoj

-- 
 The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized
 society, must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and
 restraints. Samuel Hendel
Manoj Srivastava               <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA            <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .