Re: About repackaging of the ???orig??? tarball.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:28:44AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> By distributing the pristine source, we provide a service to the free
> software community outside of Debian.
I do not agree to this general statement. Sometimes the service to
write a proper makefile which generates autogenerated content and cleans
it up in a proper clean target is a way better service to the free
software community rather than copying tarballs containing a lot of
unneeded stuff. I don't say that repackaging is a good thing in general
but your statement is not generally valid without looking at the tarball
in question.
> Often, files the buildds do not use can be helpful for other users.
> Configure scripts, source files generated by bison or web, and
> processed documentation often fall into this category. Patent-
> encumbered code can sometimes, too.
What about .svn / .CVS directories and large chunks of binary data
(object files, libraries, executables for different architectures)?
> On the other hand, some files in the upstream tarball really may be
> useless for everybody. This should be fixed upstream!
This is really true. Any reason you see to repack the upstream
source should be discussed with upstream first. I have some kind
of a 50% acceptance rate in the cases I tried.
> The second reason above is most important to me: it is really
> unpleasant to fight against repacking scripts. If the terms of
> redistribution make this trouble necessary, I grumble and bear it.
> The rest of the time, I would like to avoid it.
... as you try to avoid any work which should not be needed.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: