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

Re: Support of new source packages in squeeze

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:47:28PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, James Westby wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 17:11 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> > There's nothing to specify here, dpkg-source uses all additional tarballs
> >> > that match the regexp (exactly like it identifies the .orig tarball
> >> > currently).
> >> 
> >> bzr-builddeb will endeavour to provide the ".orig.tar.gz" for a format 1
> >> package, so that you can construct a source package from a bzr branch.
> >> 
> >> This will be essentially impossible for 3.0 (quilt) packages that 
> >> use multiple tarballs, as there is no information in the unpacked
> >> source package that tells you which tarballs are needed. This is a
> >> pretty serious problem in my eyes.
> >
> > I could create debian/source/orig-components at unpack time and maybe even
> > have dpkg-source -b check for their existence but I'm not yet convinced
> > that this problem needs to be solved at the dpkg-source level.
> >
> > Furthermore, creating debian/source/orig-components is interesting
> > for your use case together with --skip-debianization and it's somewhat
> > weird to have only that file in the debian tree in that case.
> >
> > What do others think ?
> I think it would be good to have this in dpkg. That way all the
> different RCS build scripts can use the same file and syntax. If every
> rcs-buildpackage creates their own file then migrating from e.g. svn
> to git means rewriting that config.

OTOH Raphael has a point: if you don't have any debian/ in your upstream
code it doesn't really make sense to have a single
debian/source/orig-components stored there. That is adding debian
specific data (or at least data that's only needed by debian) to the
upstream data. I actually thought about storing that info in


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: