Re: What does dpkg-source mean with this?
Wednesday 13 November 2002 12.18 skrev Paul Cupis:
> It can be modified. It should be unchanged. Being unchanged has beneifts
> including but not limited to allowing users to verify the original tgz with
> upstream and clearly showing (in the diff.gz) what changes were made during
> packaging. If these changes can be sent upstream for inclusion in a later
> release of the software, geat.
Ok, I understand. Unmodified if possible, even if dpkg-source complains.
> It doesn't matter. dpkg-source will extract the tgz to a correctly named
> directory.
It appears that it does not do that in the noteedit case, since it tries to
extract over the build-directory. So something else is wrong.
> It should be called noteedit_2.0.16.orig.tar.gz, per the packaging manual.
Meaning the only modification is to change the name?
> I would be inclined to leave it in the orig.tar.gz, but either patch it or
> remove in the build process (in the clean target?). I'm don't have the
> details of how to best do this handy, but iirc, this is the recommended
> solution.
The problem is that the diff file becomes hard to understand, and you can't
use the same diff file on a later version of the program, but have to unpack
the version matching the diff file first, save the debian dir, and then
unpack the version you want to build, remove the patches to the debian dir
from the diff file, and apply the patches (if any). Therefore I actually
prefer a clean debian dir in the tar file when the patch file is made. Of if
somehow the debian files in the diff file can just completely replace the old
ones with some diff option. If it is possible to make debian-source to
understand that.
> Not by you? Bug upstream about it, i think. Again, this is related to
> having a pristine upstream orig.tar.gz if possible (but this is not
> essential).
So if there are any, I should just leave them and remove them in the clean
target.
-- Karolina
Reply to: