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

Re: what if upstream provides debian build directory

Hash: SHA1

On 03/18/11 20:57, Harald Jenny wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:46:46PM +0000, The Fungi wrote:
>> Not ignored at all... maintainers who find an upstream debian
>> directory getting in the way (and who are unable to successfully
>> convince upstream of the inconvenience) usually either repackage the
>> upstream source to remove it, or use v3 packaging format which
>> clears and replaces it with the contents of the maintainer's files
>> when unpacking.
> While the first option may be more elegant the second one may resemble more the
> usage pattern of a Debian user trying to build a new Debian package version
> (download the new source and then use the diff or tar containing the debian
> directory on top of it).

Actually I never understood why the "debian" directory had to be put
_into_ upstream's source directory tree. Changing upstream's
directories is just asking for troubles.

IMU the "debian" directory provides the framework for building a
Debian package from upstream's sources. We have a hierarchy here,
but the source package directory tree shows a _different_
hierarchy. When I started building Debian packages I found this
highly confusing, but maybe this was just me.

If upstream's sources would be embedded inside the debian build
directory, then it would be easier to avoid conflicts and to
manage patches. It wouldn't be necessary to distinguish between
native and non-native packages, either.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


Reply to: