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

Re: tarball in tarball: opinions

On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 12:21 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> So, is using tarball in tarball considered "bad" these days?

I see no reason to consider this "bad".

>   Is it
> viewed as an approach that once had its time but is now discouraged,
> or 

I don't use it, but don't let that discourage you. :)

> is it just a matter of personal preference 

Yes I think that it's a matter of personal preference / packaging style.

> and creating a
> README.source that tells the user what to do file makes it all okay?

It is a good idea to document tricky things in such a README file.

> I want my packages to be in the best possible shape, so I'm trying to
> decide whether I should go to the trouble of changing my personal
> packaging habits to work around the two issues above.

Trying something new is sometimes fun. :)

>   Some of these
> will be easier to handle after we can switch to 3.0 (quilt), but as
> far as I know, there is no way to replace your .orig.tar.gz without
> changing the package version, and I don't want to introduce epochs for
> this.

No need to introduce epochs.  You can update package foo-1.2.3-4 to
foo-1.2.3+debian-1 or something similar.

> Advice welcome.

My advice is that you use the packaging style conforming to
debian-policy that you feel most comfortable with.


Bart Martens

Reply to: