[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian directory included in upstream

I demand that martin f krafft may or may not have written...

> also sprach Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> [2005.04.12.2222
> +0200]:
>> It makes sense for software developers to have their own ./debian
>> directory so that they can use debian/rules binary to compile and test
>> their software while developing it.

> Huh? Why not just use ./Makefile?

I use both in gxine: debian/rules to get a "known good" version of the
package built and installed, then Makefile (with modified source) to build a
modified executable which can use the installed files.

>> What does not make a lot of sense is to release the .tar.gz with the
>> ./debian directory, as Steve Halasz said, it's perfectly valid to have it
>> in CVS the important point would be to convince them not to include it in
>> the release.

> I disagree. ./debian is the domain of the Debian maintainer, not of the
> upstream. Unless you are developing software *for* *Debian* (native), there
> is no reason why you should bother with ./debian at all.

That's a matter for the Debian maintainer and upstream. All that I can say is
that I've marked bugs as fixed in the Debian changelog without there being
any complaint...

| Darren Salt   | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| sarge,        | Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| RISC OS       | Toon Army      | demon co uk
|   Retrocomputing: a PC card in a Risc PC

Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits.

Reply to: