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

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)



On 12-08-18 at 10:19pm, Andreas Tille wrote:
>  1. The new field Files-Excluded in debian/copyright contains
>     a space separated list of regular expressions.
>     The deletion process will loop over every expression
> 
>       rm -rf ${MAIN_SOURCE_DIR}/<expression>

Copyright file format emplicitly emphasizes that the globbing is not 
shell style but find style.

I believe it is better to loop over either of these expressions:

    find ${MAIN_SOURCE_DIR}/* -path <expression> -delete

    find ${MAIN_SOURCE_DIR}/* type f -name <expression> -delete

The latter is when item does not contain "/".


>  4. In case something was removed the version string will be appended by
>     '+dfsg' to express the fact that the content of the original source
>     was changed.

Suffix should be configurable.

I use ~dfsg by default, ~dfsg1 and bumping numbers for multiple 
repackagings, and only +dfsg when the repackaging happens after a 
non-repackaged version was released into Debian.

Reason for this is that there is a slight chance upstream may re-release 
same upstream version repackaged to fix a purely tarball-related issuem 
and I would then have room for using that proper version instead of 
using epoch or add a bogus .0 to the version.


> For the implementation of this it waqs suggested to
> 
>    use Debian::Copyright;

That initial test by Gregor makes me worry if Debian::Copyright parser 
might be too strict: Writing should be strict but parsing relaxed - 
Copyright file format with undefined fields added should *not* be 
treated as broken. Perhaps there are other surprises waiting to happen 
:-/


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: