Re: Tarball question
I've applied a few days ago as debian developer and currently waiting
for being assigned an AM ;) so my answer is just my opinion, not based
on much experience ;)
> 1. I keep up the distinction between the two tarballs. This has
> the disadvantage that I have two write two rules files etc. and
> yields two orig.tar.gz.
Like it was done by the previous maintainer?
I consider this a good idea if the two parts might be updated
independently; if i understand you correctly, there's also documentation
in the first tarball - then i would prefer the following
> 2. I merge the two tarballs into one, which contains the
> original tarballs in two subdirectories. This would be nice
> because I would need only one orig.tar.gz, and would not
> increase the total size.
did you look at other packages with the same problems etc.?
There will surely be some out there.
I also like the way xfree builds: the tarball contains the official
tarball which will be extracted and patched during the build process.
So i think it would be possible that you make a source tarball
containing just the two upstream tarballs and a debian/rules file which
extracts both tarballs into a working dir, patches them and then starts
building the packages.
Ths disadvantage is that if somebody wants/needs to compile mozart
himself, he'll have to download more data.
> 3. I build the documentation from the sources. This requires
> Java, and as this is a somewhat tricky dependency, this
> solution was given up some time ago.
A build-dependency on java (where i do not understand why jdk1.1 could
go into non-free...) which isn't inside the debian tree - that would be
very ugly and worth a lot to avoid.
Did you try building it with other sgml parsers?
Greetings,
Erich
Reply to: