Re: file encoding and eol marker in orig.tar.gz
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:24:40PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> 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. :-)
It's good to know that it's possible to leave compiled things in the
tarball, but in these cases there are also third-party jars without
source code. As I am repackaging anyway, I will cut out all jars to
save space.
> > 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.
Upstream recently changed it the other way around :(
The main problem with not converting it is that it is a pain to write
and maintain patches with broken/different eol markers. OTOH, I see
the point to have as unchanged as possible sources.
> > 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.
Ok.
> > 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.
I will then point it out in the copyright file. I was just afraid of
not complying with debian copyright rules.
Thanks,
Tiago.
Reply to: