Re: repackaged .orig.tar.gz (was: RFS: libmsn)
* Pau Garcia i Quiles [Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:11:44 +0100]:
> >> 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.
No, that is not correct. You should not repackage just to rename the
top level directory, period. No matter if what doesn't match is the
version part, the name part, or both.
Said that, your source package name should still be "libmsn" even if the
binary package is named "libmsn0.1", bacause when you bump the binary
package to "libmsn0.2", we want the source package name to remain
constant. Please fix that.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Dar Williams - After All
Reply to: