[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2

On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 08:26:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > Still, documentation. Dpkg-source isn't friendly without documentation.
> > Nothing is.
> "Oh look, here's a tarball. Hm, and here is a patch that seems to apply
> to it. Ok, I see a full source tree now and I'm on my way."
> vs.
> "Oh look, here's a tarball. Hm, and here is a patch that seems to apply
> to it. But wait, why did that tarball include another tarball, and why
> did that patch include what looks like other patches inside it? Double
> patches? Ugh. What do I do from here? How do I apply all these patches
> in the right order?"

"hmm, there's a file README.build, oh run 'debian/rules setup'. cool, that
works now"

The only reason this isn't cleaner is because it's a hack on top of an
aging source format. Making it more streamlined would require support from
dpkg-source. IMO, it would look like:

foo_1.0-3_debian.tar.gz (debian directory)
foo_1.0-3_patches.tar.gz (get applied in the order they are packed)

Makes more sense than what we have now, and is easier to seperate (where
as now, the entire debian directory is in a diff, and would be easier to
parse as a tarball of it's own).

The point being, I'm not arguing that the format I or other people are
using is right, but the "system" is more useful than what we are given to
use (the diff/dsc/tar setup). You can argue about the tar in a tar all you
want, I don't like it either. But the seperate patch set is a must, and
don't argue "well apply and remove it during the build/clean targets of
debian/rules" because that is ugly and asking for problems.

/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: