Re: non-standard source archives
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Watson <email@example.com> writes:
Colin> I suppose I could use DBS and build-depend on rpm2cpio or
As much as I like DBS, there is no reason, IMHO, why DBS should be
required here. It should be an easy matter just to code the required
filename into *.dsc, and use that instead. However, most packages use
tar, so I guess no-one has yet been motivated to fix this.
Colin> something, but I much prefer one-level diffs, and
Colin> ultimately I'd rather see dpkg-source able to unpack
Colin> multiple upstream source formats. (What happened to that
Colin> proposal for a new source package format, by the way?)
You mean the one which allowed DBS source files without ugly hacks
(putting the upstream source tar.gz file into another tar.gz file, and
putting diffs inside the diff.gz file).
Personally, (although I realize not everyone will agree) I think using
a DBS like structure is important for any complicated package that
deviates in lots of different ways from the upstream source, eg. my
heimdal-* packages. If I only had one diff, then it would be
impossible for anyone to work out what I changed and why. Also, if
somebody doesn't like one of my changes, it is easy to delete/move the
patch and recompile without that change.
Previously I used cvs, but found it increasingly difficult to isolate
each change from the entire set of changes.
Hence, I was wondering what happened to this proposal, too.
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>