Re: different sizes for same upstream tarball
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:38:27PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> This is neither pragmatic, nor could I find anything in policy or the
> packaging manual that states this. The reason this is not a useful
> guideline is that *many* upstream tarballs are not a
> ./$package-$version/code format. Some aren't gzipped, and some
The ./$package-$version/ layout is no longer necessarily, and
it's a bug in the relevant documentation that it's still mentioned.
I would guess that less than 10% of my packages actually obey that rule.
Some have no version. Some even have a different name. For example,
the original source archives for the geda-gschem package are called
just gschem_date.tar.gz; I rename them to geda-gschem_date.orig.tar.gz.
They unpack into just gschem/, which is no problem for modern versions
of dpkg-dev.
> aren't even tarballs. Yet others are broken in other special ways. For
> example, I just sponsored an upload a fortunes package where the
> upstream tarball contained a full copy of the source for wget (?!?) -
> naturally, we cut that out and saved about 450kB of cruft from occupying
> every Debian mirror in the world.
There are some circumstances where it is necessary but they are not
too common these days.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: