Bug#492661: developers-reference: Bogus phrasing about .orig.tar.gz repackaging.
while discussing repackaging upstream sources with Stuart, he noticed
that the following phrasing is a bit bogus, from §220.127.116.11:
| A repackaged .orig.tar.gz
| 1. must contain detailed information how the repackaged source was
| obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the 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.
One could understand that some debian/ directory should (must) be added
to the resulting new .orig.tar.gz.
I'm attaching a patch to rephrase that a bit. In case it's still not
clear enough, one might want to replace “documented” with “documented in
the resulting source package”. Of course, that's just a rough suggestion
and better style would rock. :)
Thanks for considering.
@@ -1601,8 +1601,8 @@
-<emphasis role="strong">must</emphasis> contain detailed information how the
-repackaged source was obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the
+<emphasis role="strong">must</emphasis> be documented. Detailed information on how the
+repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced must be provided in
<filename>debian/copyright</filename>. It is also a good idea to provide a
<literal>get-orig-source</literal> target in your
<filename>debian/rules</filename> file that repeats the process, as described