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

Re: dpkg-source v2

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think my version is simpler. The .dsc for evolution would then look
> like this:
>  98de5a37e7ff94ba30607671176e8a2c 13852125 evolution_1.0.7.orig.tar.gz
>  5baeb94fb934d0bf783ea42117c400be 1954117 evolution:db_3.1.17.orig.tar.gz
>  00fdddef14f104800edbba00e67dabf3 16806 evolution:debian_1.0.7-2.tar.bz2

Erm. Having:


would make more sense. Not being able to work out which files go together
to make up the source package from the filenames alone is kinda sucky.

Allowing something like:

	Native packages:
		<pkg>_<sub>_<ver>.<arc>   (0 or more)

	Patched packages:

		<pkg>_<sub>_<upstream>.orig.<arc>  (0 or more)

	(<arc> is one of tar.gz, tar.bz2, zip (?)
	 <diffarc> is one of diff.gz, diff.bz2, tar.gz, tar.bz2, zip (?)
	 <sub> is a subcomponent of the source, and follows the same rules as
		package naming)

is probably do-able. Although you could end up with conflicts if your
Debian revision (<rev>) ended with ".orig" -- foo.deb 1.3-4.orig, to
foo.deb 1.3-4-5 would have the Debian patch for 1.3-4.orig be called
"foo_1.3-4.orig.tar.gz" and the 1.3-4 upstream tarball would also be
called that.  So it'd probably be better to expect the Debian stuff to
end in .diff.{gz,bz2,tar.gz,tar.bz2,zip}, giving:

	Patched packages:

		<pkg>_<sub>_<upstream>.orig.<arc>  (0 or more)

Hrm. Does it really make sense to put the <sub> name before the version?


..would seem somewhat nicer, and easier to parse, and work with generally.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

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

Reply to: