RE: Redundant code for non-us?
iirc this exact situation was discussed rather recently with
some other package, and the result was that there is one /main
source archive. The division to '/us' and /non-us is not
important, especially now when apt can hide it from the user.
This would imply one source in /non-us and two binaries.
Can't remember exact time or the package in question, however.
Still it might be useful to browse through archive to see
if anything turns up.
t.aa
Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> Fri Nov 12, 1999 8:03 PM
> The latest upstream version of powstatd comes in two favours,
> regular and one that use 128-bit TEA encryption for communication
> between master and slave.
>
> Currently, the upstream author is producing two source archives
> (but we are discussing this). The only difference is that one
> doesn't include xtea.c and the other one does. I planned to have
> my regular `powstatd' package supplemented by a new
> `powstatd-crypt' package.
>
> Do I have to make two source packages?
>
> Or can I upload everything to non-us and produce two binary
> packages (one for regular main and the other for non-us/main)?
> I have the feeling this is not allowed because it makes the
> source hard to find. Right?
>
> The irony is that xtea.c is freely available outside the US, does
> not originate from the US, and has only _32_ lines of code!
Reply to: