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

Re: dpkg-source v2

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 08:43:19PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > (Actually, it'd probably be simpler to have ".diff.tar", and compress
> > the patches individually - this would also let you use the pristine
> > patch-2.5.31.bz2 and such like)
> Unfortunately that doesn't handle the case of a patch that is only
> available upstream in an uncompressed form.  The overhead of double
> compression is pretty small anyway.

Sure it does -- you just gzip it yourself :)  (The reason it's important
is so you can check that the patch Debian's using is really the same as
the upstream one it purports to be, which is most easily done with md5sums
and pgp sigs -- if the pgp sig is of the uncompressed patch it's easy to
test, if it's of the compressed patch, we need to make sure that's what
we distribute, since you can't reliably pipe something through gzip,etc
and get the exact same output everytime, no matter what)

The main benefit of calling it .tar is that that way it's completely
clear what each type of file in the archive is, from the filename alone.

But yeah, you're right, it's not worth worrying abuot, whatever's easiest
is best.


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.''

Attachment: pgp9rUyPmiiug.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: