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

Re: Reforming 'orig.tar.gz' with included tar-ball.

Hello all,

so many comments, but no two take similar viewpoints.
The absolute winner from an informational point was
the first exposition of Goswin von Bredow. Read it again!

Let me comment lightly to indicate that I appreciate
all your comments. Very useful learning material indeed.
By chance I take Paul's letter for my cue lines. No offence

onsdag den 27 januari 2010 klockan 09:05 skrev Paul Wise detta:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Mats Erik Andersson
> > I am in the process of fulfilling an ITA filed on an orphaned package.
> > However, I now experience a desire to begin patching the upstream
> > source for compiling errors and spelling errors in the manual page.
> Since you are now part of upstream (I assume this is nettoe), just

No, I nurish my own source better than this! (Or am I infamous?)
Nettoe is in unstable since eleven days, a mips-machine is delaying!

> make those changes in the upstream version control repository and make
> a new release. If this isn't nettoe, send patches upstream and prod
> them into making a new release.

The upstream author is a long time Debian Developer that has not touched
the code since 2004.

> > To my dismay the previous maintainer chose to let the 'orig.tar.gz'-file
> > contain the packaged and compressed upstream tar archive. My personal
> > taste is to abondon this practice, if for no other reason to simplify
> > the rules-file.
> Please do so, tarball-in-tarball packages are horrible. With "3.0
> (quilt)" format there is much less reason to use them.
> > Is there some reverence that should prevent me from taking the step
> > of letting a new 'orig.tar.gz' be a byte-for-byte copy of the upstream
> > source archive? I will make the new package conform to "3.0 (quilt)".
> You'll need to make the upstream version of the new tarball different
> to the current one in Debian, otherwise the new tarball will be
> rejected by dak. If you/upstream release a new upstream version you
> won't need to resort to version number hacks. The usual version number
> hack is to append +ds1 to the upstream version number.

I have spent most of today on the restoration of the package,
thereby resolving four bugs and thirteen lintian warnings.
It is now fully clean, only mentioning twelve overrides.

The present package will undergo testing before I look for
a sponsor, but for a starter I decided to keep the original
packaging structure since I found out that a could drop five
paches into a subdirectory


which in the previous packaging only contained upstream's original
tar-archive. The possibility to drop patches there was hidden in


a good and sound script.

Mats E Andersson

Reply to: