Re: Upstream debian/ dir.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Martin Baehr wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:40:31PM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
> > It turned out he agreed to omit the debian tree from his tarballs at my
> > request, but I also suggested he could just rename the directory to
> > debian_sample. In this way there would be no interference with my work,
> > and he could keep debian_sample loosely synchronized as he saw fit.
>
> i don't see the need for this seperation.
> it suggests that debian maintainer and upstream should not work in
> unison, but keep their work seperate. why is that?
One reason is that many upstream developers who maintain debian/ dirs, by
their own admission don't really know what they are doing. Many times
they are debian users who have cobbled together a bare minimum debian/
directory, and have no knowledge of debian menus, alternatives, virtual
packages, build dependencies, etc. Its mainly this sort of knowledge that
makes debian packages an improvement over autoconf'd tarballs.
I agree that the best solution for upstream authors who want to have a
debian directory around is to let the debian developer do the work if they
are willing, keep it in CVS and then not put it in their tarball releases.
Britton Kerin
Reply to: