Bug#492661: developers-reference: Bogus phrasing about .orig.tar.gz repackaging.
tags 492661 + pending
thanks
On 28/07/08 at 02:04 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.0
> Severity: minor
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> while discussing repackaging upstream sources with Stuart, he noticed
> that the following phrasing is a bit bogus, from §6.7.8.2:
> | 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.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.
> --- a/best-pkging-practices.dbk
> +++ b/best-pkging-practices.dbk
> @@ -1601,8 +1601,8 @@
> <orderedlist numeration="arabic">
> <listitem>
> <para>
> -<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
Thanks, applied to svn.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: