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

Re: visualos

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:52:01AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:36:20PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Andrew Pollock <apollock@debian.org> [2004-06-23 11:33]:
> > > VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was
> > > also the upstream developer (it's a SourceForge project).
> > > 
> > > So should I convert this to a normal style package instead? Is it as
> > > straightforward as renaming the tarball?
> > 
> > It's a native package which uses non-native version numbers... I think
> > it should be non-native.  Ideally, obtain the upstream .tar ball, make
> > a diff to the current package and use that as the Debian diff.  And
> > when you build -3, include the new .orig.tar, but it will need another
> > name as the one currently in the archive.  (Ugh, messy.)
> Hmm. I've read the other emails regarding the new tarball having .orig in
> the name. The version in sid/sarge is a released version + CVS stuff. It's
> horrible. I'm going to deviate from my normal practise of not updating
> upstream versions for my QA uploads and package the newer upstream
> version...

The plot thickens... The upstream source is a debianized source tree, so
what does this mean for me? Carry on as normal with respect to version
numbering and orig.tar.gz whatnot?



Reply to: