Le mardi 16 août 2011 13:31:34, Hamish a écrit : > Hi, > > it is been a while since our last review of the OpenCPN > packaging, and the stable release we were working towards > has now shipped. Our .deb packaging efforts await further > instructions. > > > source tarball: > > http://pkg-grass.alioth.debian.org/tarballs/opencpn_2.5.0+dfsg.orig.tar.gz > > debian/ packaging files: > svn co svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-grass/packages/opencpn/trunk/debian > > earlier review+comments can be found in the ITP: > http://bugs.debian.org/538067 > > > You'll notice our source tarball is labeled dfsg. This is because > there were some included DLLs to help build the MS Windows > version of the program which we didn't need/want for the Linux > build, the source code itself is untouched. Are the DLL themselves non-free? Or maybe big? devref suggest to leave them in the archive unless they are big since some people might want to grab the source from Debian instead of the upstream website. See § 6.7.8.2 third bullet. There would be the extra advantage of resolving all the "issues" below. > > With respect to that, the one unanswered question Anton & myself > had was if the version in debian/changelog needed to exactly > match the filename of the source package? i.e. do we need to > include "dfsg" in the version number? > > I would prefer not to as our build is bit-for-bit identical to > the upstream source distribution, and amending the version number > gives the impression that upstream is somehow not DFSG. There > was some talk that pbuilder had issues with the .orig.tar.gz > version number having to match the final binary package number. > Is there a work around? Does there have to be? (I mean do the > debian buildbots care if the source.orig.tar.gz version exactly > matches?) I am using debuild and don't experience the problem > myself.. > > > thanks, > Hamish
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.