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

devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking

Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.3

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:45:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> > while checking the section of the Developers reference
> > (“Repackaged upstream source”) in the context on another thread on this
> > list
> > ([🔎] d921045c2e3ae5ecfba088e9d82eb2c6@drazzib.com">http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[🔎] d921045c2e3ae5ecfba088e9d82eb2c6@drazzib.com),
> > I found the following :

> >   A repackaged .orig.tar.gz

> >      1. should be documented in the resulting source package. Detailed
> >      information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how
> >      this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright. It
> >      is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in your
> >      debian/rules file that repeats the process, as described in the
> >      Policy Manual, Main building script: debian/rules.

> > I have no strong opinion on the subject, but I think that either the
> > Developers Reference should be modified to reflect current consensus and
> > practice, or in contrary the section of the Dev. Ref. argues for
> > the incorporation of the removing information in the DEP-5
> > machine-readable format.

> I personally still believe this information belongs in debian/copyright,
> not in README.source.  README.source might be appropriate if there are
> detailed instructions required for how someone else would create a new
> upstream source tarball, but debian/copyright is the appropriate location
> to describe the provenance of the upstream tarball, which in my opinion
> should include a human-readable description of transformations applied to
> it.

I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
README.source rather than in debian/copyright; however, I think the more
important issue here by far is that policy and the devref currently
recommend including the same information in two different places, and this
duplication is bad and inevitably leads to *both* locations being unreliable
sources for this information.  Moving this to a bug on the devref (per my
personal preference); if consensus is that debian/copyright is the right
place for this, then we can reassign it to policy, but one way or the other
one of these documents should be changed to agree with the other.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: