Re: duplicate library code in a package
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
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.
I am just not sure how "strong" this practice should be seen. My
personal opinion is that the .orig should be as original as possible
(with the benefit that its really easy to verify if its identical
to the upstream tarball with some MD5 sum), but there are a lot of
- Specifically, if you need to update autotool output, this belongs 100%
in the diff.gz (directly or via dpatch et al).
Especially regarding autotools output, many other maintainers think
different. You end up with a rather huge .diff.gz, and for a lot
of people this is reason enough to repackage the upstream tarball.
Also note that deletion of files is ignored for diff.gz creation.
Yeah, but you get a huge amount of warnings .... so if you have to
repackage anyway, you could also remove those files, even though
it might not be good practice to repackage for that reason *only* ...
Thanks for the pointer to those cool slides :-)