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

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:06:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> Nobody says that get-orig-source must be only used for repackaging
> purposes. I think it is fine to have such target just getting the
> upstream source (ok a hash checking against a previously checked
> and trusted version is required) without further modifications
> over it which is to be built on the autobuilder or end user side.
> Any worries with that ?

This sounds, to me, to be bordering on redundancy with the purpose
of including a debian/watch file, as both would likely be pointing
to similar sources (one for new versions, one for the current
version with a MD5 hash as a sanity check). To take it even further,
I'd be interested in a marriage between the upstream source location
in debian/copyright and a target in debian/rules that would allow
you to:

 a) eliminate the need to put the upstream URI in multiple files
 b) subsume or at least auto-generate a debian/watch, as desired

Maybe have a machine-parsable URI in debian/copyright (since policy
requires the upstream source origin to be indicated therein anyway),
and then make a debian/rules target that creates a debian/checksum
containing a MD5/SHA1 digest of the original upstream source and a
usable debian/watch (for backward compatability with uscan, since
you could at this point easily replace its functionality with
another make target anyway). Then the get-orig-source target could
determine the upstream version from debian/control, retrieve the
proper source tarball from upstream via the URI in debian/copyright
and verify it against the debian/checksum contents, followed by (in
cases where needed) performing removal/adjustment and repacking of
the contents to create the maintainer's mangled substitute.

I know this smacks of being a solution in search of a problem, but
would the above automation scenario be considered a voilation of
packaging policy/guidelines, obfuscated or unnecessarily cumbersome?
I'm tempted to play around with the ideas above and throw together a
mockup (just for fun).
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP(fungi@yuggoth.org); IRC(fungi@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER(fungi@yuggoth.org);
MUD(fungi@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }

Reply to: