Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es> writes: > So we have to make a new package for *every* source package? We already do, when you run dpkg-source --build, it makes a .orig.tar.gz file, a .diff.gz file, and a .dsc file. My proposal does the same thing, except you'd use a different script (probably) to generate a src-orig-*.deb and src-deb-*.deb. These .deb files could be stored in the source tree on master, and have their own separate Packages file. So a use could choose to view them using dselect/deity, or not. > Now that dpkg-source is able to manage untouched pristine source when > it is well-behaved, this is a step backwards. Why backwards? Maybe a horizontal step. Actually, I think it's a bit better, since you can have multiple pristine sources, you don't have to rename them, and there is a logical place to store additional information about them (such as where they came from). Plus a single upstream source package can be easily shared amongst several debian packages. > This package format is much more work for the maintainers. I don't think so. I think it takes exactly the same amount of work. There are the same number of files. The only difference is that you have to take care to use variable definitions in the Makefile so that you separate the Debian source directory from the upstream source directory from the temporary build directory. > The question is: Do we *really* need .deb packages to satisfy > Source-Dependencies? Maybe not. But I do think it is a very clean solution. Thanks for your feedback. I hope I'm not being too argumentative. :-) Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgp8eQI6q7KfN.pgp
Description: PGP signature