Re: mplayer, the time has come
A Mennucc <email@example.com> wrote:
[please, please repair your quoting mechanism. Done that for you in this mail].
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> That is not a valid reason to pretend it is a native package. The
>> correct thing to do is to create a new .orig.tar.gz with the offending
>> files removed from it, but keep the rest of the .orig.tar.gz
>> unchanged. Debian changes and package infrastructure should still go
>> in a .diff.gz, and the package version should consist of an upstream
>> version with a separate Debian revision.
> I object to this
> a file mplayer....orig.tar.gz is, as the name says, the original
> distributed source
No, it isn't there are lots of packages that have removed non-free files
from their orig.tar.gz files that way. There might even be packages for
which no upstream archive in tar.gz form exists. Please see
and the discussions referenced therein. I wrote this bug report in order
to enforce a policy that orig.tar.gz files *should* be pristine as
possible. But the fact that this is necessary clearly shows that it is
not a requirement.
> distributing my modified tar.gz disguising it as the upstream original one
> would be cause of confusion
That's why you have to document this in debian/README.Debian or
debian/README.Debian-source. But an orig.gar.gz file is just one
technical part of a Debian source package, it doesn's say anything about
pristine or repackaged.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich