On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:10:11AM -0200, Tiago Saboga wrote: > The background is that I already have to repackage upstream tarball, > because they contain compiled jars. I don't know much about java, but if those are just compilations of things for which the source is also in the tarball, there is no need to repackage. You can remove them in the clean target in debian/rules, for example, to make sure they are regenerated. But of course I may be completely missing the point. :-) > 1) Should I convert eol markers (fromdos)? Or at least should I fix > the half a dozen files which have CRLF+CR as eol markers? I wouldn't do that. Repackaging is done to make the tarball complient with our standards, not to beautify it. If this conversion is a good idea (and I agree that it is), then that is an upstream issue, and it should be fixed there. Asking them about it is a good idea, changing it in the package is not IMO. > 2) Should I convert the encoding to utf-8? Same thing, if it is a good idea, it should be done upstream. The tarball should look as much as possible like the original upstream. In fact, it should _be_ the original upstream, of course, but if it can't, then it should be as close as possible to it. Changes you want to make should be made using the diff.gz. > In libhtmlparser, there are two files without copyright notice. This > is already corrected in upstream's svn, but upstream is slowly > preparing a new major version and doesn't seem likely to release soon. > May I introduce myself the notice, noting somewhere that it was > 'backported' from svn? If this is really a mistake, and this new notice is also valid for previous versions (this is likely, but I don't know the details), then you can safely add it. I don't think this is really needed, though. I would mention in the copyright file that those files really have the following license: ... with links to the upstream sources, or e-mail archives saying that they do. You can choose to also add the header to the file in the .diff.gz, but there's no real need IMO. It definitely isn't a reason to repackage the tarball, and thus not something you should fix in the repackaged tarball. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature