Re: Packaging of mailinglist archives
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 05:08:15PM +0100, Jan Kesten wrote:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > Nice idea. Where do you get the mbox from?
>
> By now I archiving or better buliding up an archive of different
> mailinglists. Right now they are stored in a database for easy checking
> if there are new mails to be added to a specific month.
So, you're subscribed to a whole bunch of lists, and you store the
messages yourself? Ideally, mbox files would be publically available
from www.debian.org, but I can't find them if that's the case.
> > Make sure that its an architecture-independent package, of course (as
>
> It is, or better it should. Whe I build the package, there are following
> files created:
>
> debian-user-german-200301_1.dsc
> debian-user-german-200301_1.tar.gz
> debian-user-german-200301_1_all.deb
> debian-user-german-200301_1_i386.changes
>
> Okay, probably I don't need the source packages to be created.
Its a Debian native package? I guess that makes sense.
This would be an ideal candidate for the "data" section proposed in
wishlist bug #38902 [0], apparently rejected by the ftpmasters. The
advantage that I see to this is that there is no "source package" vs.
.deb. The .deb *is* the source package, just with a control file and
a copyright file and whatever, and compressed and relocated as
necessary to /usr/share/.
> But I'm wondering, that the package itself has _all.deb at the end
> but the changelog has _i386.changes (but I think this is because it
> is build on a x86 architecture) - or I missed something?!
If it has _all, then its arch-indep, which is correct. Donno why the
.dsc has _i386, but I think that's okay, since its _all.
Justin
References
[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=38902
Reply to: