Re: Intent to package pine-src
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> I have just read Bug #14355, in which Ian Jackson said about qmail-src:
>
> This package has no reason to exist and should be withdrawn. We
> distribute source as .dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz.
>
> Well, this package exists for two reasons:
>
> 1) Because license does not allow to distribute a binary.
> 2) Because there is not an easy method for downloading a source package
> by using dselect or existing tools.
>
> To solve 1), we would have to change the license, but we can't because we
> obviously do not own the copyright...
>
> To solve 2), we can either:
>
> a) Modify dselect/dpkg so that it allows retrieving and unpacking source
> packages as well as binary packages.
>
> b) Allow .deb "source" packages like qmail-src, as an exception for the
> rule "we distribute source as .dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz" for non-free
> packages.
>
> Since a) is clearly not going to be done for hamm, I don't see really a
> reason why -src packages should be "forbidden".
>
> Ian, why do you still think that qmail-src should not exist?
> Are you the only one?
>
I agree with Ian. The .deb file format is expressly for the distribution
of configured executables (binaries for short). Using this format for
source distribution is simply asking for trouble.
Maybe we need a tarball that contains .dsc, .changes, .diff, and
.orig.tar.gz all rolled up in one .src file, known to all the necessary
programs, but to me this isn't necessary.
For almost two years now we have distributed source packages as a
collection of checksum authenticated files with a pgp signed changes file
containing them. These four files: .dsc, .changes, .diff, and .orig.tar.gz
comprise the Debian Source Format, as described in the significant
documentation.
We do it this way for both DFSG Free as well as for contrib and non-free
software, so why make an exeption in this case?
Retrieval of source from archives is usually done "by hand" but any such
bulk retrieval should be easy to manage with a script. I take the lack of
a script to indicate the current relative lack of need. Anyone is welcome
to prove me wrong by writing such a script ;-)
Although few agree with me, I still feel that packaging kernel source in
.deb format was/is a mistake. The kernel-package-builder package doesn't
benefit from this packaging style, as far as I can tell and it makes the
kernel more perculiar than it need be.
Another benefit of this source format that the .deb does not provide is
the one time only download of orig.tar.gz. Until the upstream version
changes, one can keep up with the Debian package by only needing to
download the .diff and .dsc files (typically many orders smaller) to
create a source tree that will build the current version of the Debian
package.
Keep source in Source Format and use the .deb files for what they were
intended, the distribution of "binary" components.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: