Re: Bug#466550: Pristine source from upstream VCS repository
On Wed, Mar 11 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 11-Mar-2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > I am wondering which is of more use to the end users as
>> > well: I can always get the sources of the package I have
>> > already on my disk from Debian, but getting the latest
>> > munged source seems more useful to me.
>> Full ACK. The way to get the current upstream source for a debian
>> package is "apt-get source" or equivalent and then using the
>> orig.tar.gz. Duplicating this in debian/rules seems wastefull.
> That's not quite the same thing though. That will get the original
> source archive *as in the Debian repository*; while the existing and
> proposed ‘get-orig-source’ target gets the original source archive
> *from the canonical upstream location itself*.
In most cases, the sources are identical; and even otherwise, it
is just a matter of looking into debian/copyright and doing a
wget. This is not a compelling enough case to create a whole new target
in debian/rules and policy.
Indeed, the whole rationale for the target, and why it got into
policy, was for the secific cases where extended munging of upstream
had to be done, usually, but not restricted to, the cases where
upstream had DFSG violations and the upstream source could not be
allowed in the main section of the archive.
This is what diferentiates is from uscan; indeed, I use uscan in
the cases where I provide the target, The target unpacks the
raw upstream source, munges it (by, say, removing a subdir which has
non-dfsg stuff, or removes the debian dir, applies patches, or whatever
other processing is required.
There is no need to do this for the current version; the mungeds
sources already are an apt-get source away.
This is not a trivial replacement for uscan watch file with a
version number in the regexp, which is the trivial way of implementing
the task of getting the current version from upstream). This target is
for the developers of munged sources to provide a script to munge the
Keep in mind that sometimes an unmunged source will not build
with the debian/rules file in the archive; so it is not just a
matter of dropping in ./debian into the latest upstream tarball.
That facility is being dropped silently, and I object to there
being no transition plan, and nothing to replace the functionality
currently provided by the target.
If we move over to the new docbook format (and I have one that
seems to kinda work, but I got demotivated before I published it), the
rationalew would have spelled out _why_ we needed such a target, and
what it was originally designed to be used for.
> It's worth asking, then, what is the original purpose for which the
> ‘get-orig-source’ target specification was inserted into the policy?
> * To get some copy of the original source archive. If so, that is
> entirely redundant with making it available in the Debian
> repository. Does anyone think this is what was intended by the
> drafters of that policy clause?
> * To get the *latest* version of the package as an original source
> archive, regardless of the Debian version of the package. This is
> largely duplicated by ‘uscan(1)’, but not for all cases.
As long as no munging is t be done.
> * To get the original source archive corresponding to the package
> directly from the canonical upstream location. That is the purpose
> of the patch I've submitted to this bug report.
I think this is not useful enough to take over the original
purpose of the target. I suggest if you think that looking into
debian/copyright + wget is too hard, then create a new policy target.
> * To do something else. I haven't seen any other options not covered
> here, but that doesn't mean the truth might not be different.
Indeed. You missed the whole "munge source to make it
acceptable for debian and allow it to be built with ./debian files"
> What is our best resource for discovering which of these options is
> the actual intent of the ‘get-orig-source’ target when it was inserted
> into policy?
Ask me. There is institutional knowledge in the post of leading
the policy development for 10 years. And my memory is not that bad --
yet, though doubtless senility encroaches.
Under deadline pressure for the next week. If you want something, it
can wait. Unless it's blind screaming paroxysmally hedonistic...
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C