Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
Le Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:33:58AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> I think it needs some clarifying words to explain contradictory advise
> which most probably is confusing at best to Scott and other upstream
> developers of upstream. My mail contained basically three arguments
> against a debian/ dir in the upstream tarball and only one of these
> three (the last item) might be a weak argument considering the new tools
> we have can deal with this reasonably. I fail to see a reason why we
> should break good old principles which are reasonable also these days
> only because there are tools which are able to deal with such issues.
Hi Andreas,
I answer on debian-med only to avoid adding to the confusion.
My opinion is that it has always been a fallacy to criticize upstream for
having debian directories. Most problems with upstream debian directories are
a consequence of upstream being unavailable to fix any bug at all, rather than
something specific to this directory.
In line with this, I also think that the approach taken in the 3.0 (quilt)
format, to discard the debian directory completely, is a total regression.
Luckily, we can use the format 1.0 when no other special feature is needed.
The format 3.0 (native) is also quite handy.
For the packages that I started and on which I am still a major contributor, I
would like Upstream to include a debian directory in his source tarballs.
Other developers may dislike it for their package, and this is a choice that I
respect.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: