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

Bug#610298: phasing out tar-in-tar in source packages



Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist

tar-in-tar source packages, i.e. Debian source packages which contains upstream
sources in compressed form and uncompress them on the fly during the build
process, are a bit of a PITA. They are particularly so for tools who want to do
source code analyses on the code shipped by debian (e.g. the recently started
DACA project) but, more generally, violate a good faith assumption that
"apt-get source" will deliver an unpacked source package where the user can
grep through upstream source code.

I haven't conducted an analyses of the amount of tar-in-tar source packages in
the Debian archive (sorry about that), but per folklore it seems that there are
very few such packages remaining in the archive. I guess this is so because
tar-in-tar was mostly used to circumvent the lack of support for non-gzip
compression in source packages, feature which is now provided by 3.0 source
formats.

Considering all the above, it would be nice if policy could start to discourage
tar-in-tar, at least with a "should" (not) requirement. A potentially
appropriate place where to mention that seems to be §4.8 "Restrictions on
objects in source packages".

Thanks for considering and many thanks in advance,
Cheers.

PS en passant: appendix §C.3 seems to be out of date wrt source formats 3.0,
   but it's not normative, so it's not a big deal

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.utf8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

debian-policy depends on no packages.

debian-policy recommends no packages.

Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
ii  doc-base                      0.9.5      utilities to manage online documen

-- no debconf information



Reply to: