Re: repackaged .orig.tar.gz (was: RFS: libmsn)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * gregor herrmann [Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:15:07 +0100]:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:30 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
>> > > Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make
>> > > tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the
>> > > .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier?
>> > You should not, dpkg-source copes well enough.
>
>> True, on the other hand the Developer's Reference suggests in
>> 6.7.8.2:
>
>> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz
>> [..]
>> 4. should use -.orig as the name
>> of the top-level directory in its tarball. This makes it possible
>> to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones.
>
>> Is this recommendation moot?
>
> No, not really. Note that in this case we were not talking about a
> repackaged tarball, but just one with the "bunzip & gzip" dance.
> Incidentally, the version in Debian was to be 4.0~beta1 instead of the
> upstream 4.0-beta1, and Pau wondered if *this* needed a repacking, which
> it did not.
>
> Hope that was clear enough. :-)
To further clarify:
What Adeodato says would be accurate in case the packagename matches
the directory name, which is not the case here.
To actually match the package name, I would need to repackage because
the original tarball uncompresses to "libmsn-4.0-beta" but it should
uncompress to "libmsn0.1-4.0~beta1". If I am to abide by rule 6.7.8.2,
renaming "libmsn" -> "libmsn0.1" should be done, and therefore this
package is no longer just a bunzip & gzip case.
- --
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
iD8DBQFJI0uz/DzYv9iGJzsRAmEwAKDRdFrHlF7LPVkhGEtdyGHDyG7SFQCfa8yq
5MOA2N7sWvvdeOe2XL/pepk=
=zgGc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: