Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification
andy.mortimer@poboxes.com (Andy Mortimer) wrote on 13.05.97 in <[🔎] 19970513104810.09368@asm21.emma.cam.ac.uk>:
> On May 12, Jim Pick wrote
> >
> > Excellent write-up, Klee. Thanks for doing it.
>
> I second this; a lot of thought has obviously gone into this, and it
> shows!
<aol> Me too! </aol>
> > > * [1.1] It must be possible to reconstruct exactly the construction
> > > of a Debian-format source package directly from upstream sources,
> > > possibly with the addition of Debian-specific patches or source
> > > files. Where bit-for-bit archive equivalence of upstream sources is
> > > not practical (because of troublesome upstream source formats),
> > > file-for-file equivalence must be provided.
> >
> > What's an example of a situation where bit-for-bit upstream archive
> > equivalence cannot be maintained? I can't think of any situations
> > where this might happen. Are there archive formats that need to be
> > used that don't have utilities to unpack them available in Debian?
How about where part of the upstream archive could go into the main
distribution, but part needs to go into non-free or non-US, even for the
sources?
That's a case where you _must_ repack the original archive.
MfG Kai
--
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 .
Reply to: