Paul Wise wrote...
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>
> > disclaimer: This is a theoretical situation
>
> Ahem.
Yes? My intention was to signalize a "I'm not in a hurry".
> > Assuming I took over maintainership for a package with upstream. So
> > there is an upstream tarball foo_1.0.orig.tar.xz but, quite frankly,
> > it's a mess. The creator didn't care about that process and so it
> > contains a lot of cruft like a populated .git/, backup files, autotools
> > debris, patches applied, you name it. Therefore I'd like to provide a
> > clean and much smaller one, ideally one provided by upstream that was
> > ignored in the past.
>
> Get all those issues fixed upstream and release a new upstream version.
If such a messed up tarball was created by upstream, I wouldn't ask in
Debian how to resolve that. Also, I'd probably not start maintaining
such a package since I'd rather not trust upstream is doing good
development if the provided result is in such a bad state.
However, I have seen a lot of poorly organized .orig.tar.* balls,
appearently created by careless Debian maintainers. Some even just a
few weeks ago; and I was wondering how I could hypothetically deal
with them. Again, no names in the public as I'm not interested in
blaming.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature