Re: Re: Original sources, or not
Hi
I got the link on the discussion from DWN NN39 and becouse I had been affected
by the problem on the suject in the near past, I have some words to say as
end user of Debian system...
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:01:46AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > many packages seem to contain .orig.tar.gz files which may or may not be
> > directly related to the files actually available from upstream. That is
> > unfortunate.
> >
> > I think that it would make sense to add a requirement to Policy that
> > the .orig.tar.gz file should be an unmodified copy from upstream.
> >
> > If that is not possible or doesn't make sense for some reason, the way to
> > go
> > from there to here should be documented either textually or, preferably,
> > achieved by running debian/package_upstream (or whatever).
> This is already mentionned in Policy 4.8:
>
> `get-orig-source' (optional)
> This target fetches the most recent version of the original
> source package from a canonical archive site (via FTP or WWW, for
> example), does any necessary rearrangement to turn it into the
> original source tar file format described below, and leaves it in
> the current directory.
>
> >Opinions?
>
> I have no problem with documenting *why* the source is not pristine,
> but I refuse to be forced to document *how* to get the non pristine
> one from the pristine one, unless you accept procedure like:
>
> 1)Unpack
> 2)Look at each file whether it is DFSG free or not. If not, delete it.
> 3)Repack.
>
> This cannot be automated.
>
> Most developers are lazy and will write a script to automate the process
> if they can. In this case debian/get-orig-source is the policy
> documented way to go.
>
> Developers use the changelog to document change to the upstream tarball
> and I feel it is quite proper.
>
> I think we should rather make a best practice document on why and how
> repackage upstream tarball. IMHO, this should be done more often, to
> save bandwidth and disk space.
>
> Reasons I know :
>
> --- tarball does not exists, or is in a stupid format.
> --- Files have stupid permissions.
> --- tarball contains files at the root.
> --- Some files are not DFSG free.
> --- You can't add binary files (e.g. icons) in a diff. Using uuencode
> is not optimal. Sometimes it is better to sneak them in the source
> tarball.
> --- tarball include large stuff that we don't want to package.
> --- tarball contains 90% arch:all code and 10% arch:any code.
> In this case it is better to split the tarball in two source
> package, one arch:all and one arch:any, so you dont need to
> unpack 20Mb of junk to build a 50kB program.
> --- Some part of the tarball are pretty static. Again it is better
> to split the tarball than to upload again and again the same static
> code.
> --- People use DBS and put the tarball in a larger tarball. I object on
> this practice, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> In conlusion, I don't see any need to change policy.
It is unclear from existent documentation (at least for the stable
distribution) the orig.tar.gz IS NOT allways repaced upstream source :-(
So consider this as bugreport at least for documentation, please...
I see the reason why it is not allways posible to have orig.tar.gz the same as
upstream... thenks for explanation... But, but, but... I'll better discribe
the problem I have got:
I had needed the XFree86 4.2.0 source for some reason, but I have wery limited
internet connection, but I have full (with sources) Debian 3.0 r0 distro on
cd which contain the source of XFree86 4.1.0 so I had downloaded the patch
4.1.0->4..2.0 form ftp.xfree86.org and went to home to contine the work at
home in the week end... at home I had unpacked the xfree86.orig.tar.gz but
the patch from Xfree86 site was not applied cleanly on the source from debian
orig.tar.gz :-( so I have lost the week end for my work :-(
PS sorry if I disturb you by mistake
PSS sorry for my engilsh -- it is not my native language...
With best regards,
Dimitry
>
> Cheers,
> Bill.
Reply to: