Re: How to include information about a source package ?
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 11:37:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I repackage openafs, for instance, because upstream distributes OpenAFS as
> two separate tarballs and dpkg support for multiple upstream source
> tarballs is not yet available, because there's *one* file in the MacOS
> packaging that Debian cares about not at all which is covered under a
> non-free license, and because, since I'm repackaging anyway, I may as well
> drop the (uninteresting for Debian) giant WINNT directory and save 8MB of
> archive space.
Oh no, I bet there's another point of DevRef contention for you ..
| 6.7.8.2.
|
| There may be cases where it is desirable to repackage the source even
| though upstream distributes a `.tar.gz' that could in principle be
| used in its pristine form. The most obvious is if _significant_ space
| savings can be achieved by recompressing the tar archive or by
| removing genuinely useless cruft from the upstream archive. Use your
| own discretion here, but be prepared to defend your decision if you
| repackage source that could have been pristine.
...
| 3. _should_, except where impossible for legal reasons, preserve the
| entire building and portablility infrastructure provided by the
| upstream author. For example, it is not a sufficient reason for
| omitting a file that it is used only when building on MS-DOS.
| Similarly, a Makefile provided by upstream should not be omitted
| even if the first thing your `debian/rules' does is to overwrite
| it by running a configure script.
|
| (_Rationale:_ It is common for Debian users who need to build
| software for non-Debian platforms to fetch the source from a
| Debian mirror rather than trying to locate a canonical upstream
| distribution point).
This is another thing I was going to do with a new saods9 revision
(previously, I was stipping libraries which Debian already includes)..
Justin
Reply to: