Re: How to include information about a source package ?

[George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>]

On Sunday 30 April 2006 10:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
--snip--
> One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target as part of the
> review is that it ensures that the derivation of the .orig.tar.gz file is
> automated and reproducible, making it easier and quicker to package the
> *next* upstream release of the software.

True.

> >> In all cases, I don't see much purpose in having a separate
> >> README.Debian-source document.
> >
> > Well, it was a choice made in the past.  In my opinion it was a good
> > choice.  But feel free to discuss this again, and have the Debian
> > Reference changed about this.
>
> Well, discussing it is exactly what I'm doing right now.  :)  Obviously if
> I can't convince anyone here, there's no point in filing a bug against the
> Developer's Reference for a change that has no consensus.

I failed to see what is wrong with the DevRef. The mentioned paragraph about 
repackaged orig.tar.gz says that:
1) repackaging <must be> be documented in README.whatever 
2) and that  <it is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target> to 
automate the repackaging process.

As far as I understand your intention is to change this to:
1) as a "good idea"
2) as a "must"

Hm, I think that both 1) and 2) must be a "must" because we have different 
audiencies: experienced users/developers who need and understand the 
automation target, and mortal end users who are just interested in simple 
words describing what has been changed and how within the non-DFSG-compliant 
upstream tarball. 

> >> Maybe if the repackaging were so complex so as to not be representable
> >> in a debian/rules get-orig-source target.
> >
> > Repackaging upstream sources should be exceptional.  Also, verifying a
> > repackaged .orig.tar.gz needs full attention anyway, so doing the
> > repackaging manually to verify is good anyway.
>
> I find automated processes more reliable than manual processes.  If it's
> an exceptional case that requires careful review, it's even *more*
> important to automate where possible so that humans don't miss things by
> accident and can review the information-dense representation (the
> automation) as opposed to the information-diffuse representation (the
> results of the automation).

Agreed.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB