Re: Bug#35781: samba has no pristine source.
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 06:16:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> There are two different things to be considered here:
> 1. dpkg-source supports pristine source. Is Eloy aware of this? (I'm not
> completely sure when he says that "samba_2.0.3.orig.tar.gz must untar in
This is what I suppose.
And I friendly suggest Eloy to take the 10 minutes to test the detailed
procedure I suggested.
> 2. A CVS artifact inside a tarball is ugly. A source which is not
> pristine is ugly too. Which one is more ugly? In cases like this, IMHO,
> the maintainer should be able to have the final say about it.
> For the record: latest procmail release had also a CVS artifact inside the
> tarball, which I have removed in the .orig.tar.gz (this is documented in
> the copyright file). I consider this as a bug in the original tarball
> which is fixed in the Debian version, so in this case I would not
> consider as a bug that the .orig.tar.gz is not pristine.
Agreed, I also remove huge binary executables from the tarball, choosing
between keeping the md5sum od keeping the archive small.
But the problem is with the method: renaming the directory will modify
the md5sum even without any deletion inside the tarball.
Even using a different compression value will affect the md5sum.
It's so easy to keep it untouched, let's do it when we can.
In the case of samba, the file wrongly inserted is 11k in size.
I don't think it hurts so much.
But now I noticed that I forgot to lower the Severity to wishlist.
I had the intention when submit the bug, but I forgot it.
Maybe this was the reason for Eloy being upset?
| firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
| email@example.com gsm: +358 40 707 2468