Re: [RFS] crystalcursors and kde-icons-nuovext
Christoph Haas wrote:
> Hi, Bastian...
>
> regarding kde-icons-nuovext...
>
> On Monday 17 October 2005 13:10, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Christoph Haas wrote:
>> > - it may be a matter of taste but I would not extract the upstream
>> > tarball right into the debian/... directory. Why not using that file
>> > as an *.orig.tar.gz. Okay, it's too late for this upstream version
>> > since Debian already has your *.orig.tar.gz in the archives.
>> > It appears like your current *.orig.tar.gz consists of the real
>> > *.orig.tar.gz. Do I miss a reason why it's done this way?
>> > I would rather do it the dh_make way and install the files with
>> > dh_install.
>>
>> Done, I've changed it to a more standard-compilant method.
>
> Okay. Just keep in mind that you cannot change the orig.tar.gz which
> is currently in Debian. You can only provide new *.diff.gz files for
> the same upstream tarball. So it's more a todo when your upstream
> releases a new version.
Ooops. This is not good.
There is already a new upstream version (1.5) but with this version,
upstream changed the license from GPL to CC with the bad "non commercial"
clause -- so it's not very likely that I'll ever find a sponsor for this
(nonfree) version. If upstream does not change his mind, I guess debian
will only see 1.1 in the archive and so there won't be a "new upstream"
anymore.
Is it really not possible to provide a new orig.tar.gz (eg by removing the
old one)? I mean my old version was really crappy and I don't want to leave
this package in this state forever.
> Or you artificially release an orig.gar.gz with a version that appears
> higher than the current one.
I've just played around with epochs. I tried to change the version to 1:1.1
but this does not work. I sniffed the sources of some other packages with
epochs and saw, that they don't include the epoch in the filename.
My last desperate attempt was be to change the upstream version from 1.1 to
1.1.0 -- would this be acceptable?
>> Thanks for pointing out all these ugly bugs. When I created this package
>> this was one of my first packages and the -2 fix is quite old too. I
>> think I've learned a bit in the meanwhile. The rules file looks *much*
>> better now.
>
> You wouldn't want to look at my first package. ;)
;)
>> -2 never hit the archive. To test the -vVersion Option, I created a -3
>> version with a rather verbose changelog. I hope this is Ok this time.
>
> I'll check your work later when I'm at home. If it's remotely okay I'll
> upload it. Thanks for considering my comments.
Even if the package is not uploadable due the new orig.tar.gz -- could you
please take a look at my other changes in this package?
I'm currently (18:00 CEST) uploading my "desperate" version 1.1.0-1, which
is exactly the same like my previos one -3. Maybe this is uploadable,
according to:
debuild -v1.1-1
...
dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
dpkg-buildpackage: full upload (original source is included)
...
it should.
Kind regards and thanks again
Bastian
Reply to: