[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: scmbug



In <1242149210.3959.13.camel@localhost>, Kristis Makris wrote:
>> > Debian is not the only distribution this system is packaged for. I
>> > don't like to have a top-level directory called "debian" in the source
>> > code repository. Instead, I have a directory called packaging/debian.
>> There is no need to have debian packaging things in upstream.
>I disagree.

Well, then you are wrong.  There is certainly never a *need* to have the 
Debian packaging upstream.  A desire, perhaps misguided, sure; but, never a 
*need*.

If it is a native package, there is no upstream.  If it is a non-native 
package the packaging is versioned separately from the upstream.  This 
removes one of the concerns that might drive one to maintain them together.

The Debian packaging may involves Debian-specific patches, and may need to 
change with the Debian policy which upstream shouldn't need to worry about.  
Separating the packaging commands is an advantage here.

Most of the people downloading your release tarballs won't be building a 
Debian package.  Most of those that are building a Debian package will 
already have access to the packaging commands, outside of your release 
tarball.  If any changes that Debian (or Debian-derivatives) need to make 
any changes to your package, various tools may complain.  At the very least, 
there will be spurious diffs.

If you want to maintain a debian/ directory in your upstream VCS and provide 
your own .debs and/or apt repository then, by all means, do so.  However, 
please don't include the debian/ directory in your release tarballs so they 
don't get in the way of the official Debian (or Ubuntu or Knoppix or 
whatever) packaging.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.           	 ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net            	((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy 	 `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/        	     \_/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: