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

Re: duplicate library code in a package


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


1. http://sam.zoy.org/lectures/20050910-debian/img17.html
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/

Reply to: