Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy
Scripsit Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>
> I think this is should be done, or any other way that clearly marks
> the .tar.gz as modified (even if only files are removed, it is a
> modification). Anyone downloading a .orig.tar.gz file from debian should
> be able to safely assume that it really is the "original .tar.gz".
In general, you can assume that if it unpacks to a directory called
<packagename>-<version>.orig, then it has been touched by the Debian
maintainer. The new section ought to increase the chance that this
only happens if the Debian maintainer has actually done something
to the upstream source, but previously many maintainers (including me)
have repackaged source without changing any files simply because we
had the misunderstanding that repackaging was the Right Thing to do.
> I think there should be no justification or similar in there, the file
> should be as short as possible.
If we put an explanation at all into the .orig.tar.gz, I cannot see
any reason not to put a rationale in the explanation. It need not be
long:
Removed the files
doc/manual.texi
examples/frizbotx/*
due to licensing problems. See the thread at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00028.html> for
further discussion.
A. Maintainer <amtn@debian.org>, Sat Feb 26 22:31:21 GMT 2005
--
Henning Makholm "We're trying to get it into the
parts per billion range, but no luck still."
Reply to: