Re: duplicate library code in a package
Hi,
Andreas Fester wrote:
>>> An excellent point. I imagine that it would also be permissible to
>>> repackage the .orig.tar.gz file so that it is gone from there as well.
>>
>> ? orig.tar.gz should be as it says - the original.
> not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be pristine.
> One reason could be to remove autotools dependencies, another could be
> to remove files which would otherwise be removed by the "clean" target
> and would end up in a huge diff.gz.
Sorry, but I have to point out that your recommendation describes the
very opposite of Debian best packaging practices.
- Basically, the only reason to repackage upstream is to avoid license
problems. Dropping unneccessary stuff might be OK if hundreds of
megabytes can be saved, but is generally not OK.
- Specifically, if you need to update autotool output, this belongs 100%
in the diff.gz (directly or via dpatch et al).
It is frowned upon (for good reasons by the qa people) to regenerate
at runtime [1].
Also note that deletion of files is ignored for diff.gz creation.
Kind regards
T.
1. http://sam.zoy.org/lectures/20050910-debian/img17.html
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Reply to: