Re: how orig should orig.tar.gz be?
Thanks for both answers, thats what I wanted to hear :-)
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:10:31PM +0100, Bart Schuller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:11:59PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > relative to this source. Now for reference I looked into other packages for
> > reference and noted that some people repackage the upstream source, where it
> > is not necessary. Easily notable when you look at the owner and group of the
> > orig source.
>
> Very good observation. I also make it a point to use the real upstream
> source where it can be done. I think a reason for repackaging is that
> the tools make it easy:
>
> tar xvfz /somewhere/foo-2.23.tar.gz
> cd foo-2.23
> dh_make
and you will immediately notice here, that you have two source tar balls
(also when you mix up "-" and "_" in the file name), which most probably
differ in file size. dh_make also tells you if it uses the existing
orig.tar.gz or if it creates one.
> At this point if you go on and then finaly do a "debuild", you'll get a
> repackaged source. What you should do is follow the above with:
>
> cd ..
> rm -rf foo-2.23.orig
> cp /somewhere/foo-2.23.tar.gz foo-2.23.orig.tar.gz
>
> This way you'll be using the real original source.
If you rename/copy the source first to foo_2.23.orig.tar.gz you don't have
to rm, cp later. But in principle that is excactly what I am doing. The
other developer (no names here) said, that "all" packages use repacked
source, so thats the correct way.
Anybody got a reference where excatly this is mentioned in policy/packaging
manual (yeah, I know, I am lazy, just got a REJECT, since copyright: GPL is
indeed a bit short ;-)
Christian
Reply to: