Re: guile-oops
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:42:10AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:32:42AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > > Egads!
> > >
> > > So I go to try and prepare a QA upload of guile-oops to orphan it properly,
> > > and it's currently a native package. I just converted visualos to a
> > > non-native package, so I figure I'll have a go with guile-oops.
> > >
> > > The bloody thing's got a tarball inside its source tarball. What should I do
> > > in this case? Leave it as a native package? Run away?
> >
> > You have to restart debian version by -1.
>
> Why? I really don't see why this should be necessary.
>
> I checked out the package, and it actually has a tarball inside with the
> contents of the 1.0 version of that very debian package...
>
> Since newest upstream is 1.0.2, simply start with that upstream
> .orig.tar.gz, and apply any patches you can discover in the package
> (though due to the very weird layout of the package, that might be
> hard).
Well I can't remember exactly what I did yesterday, but the problem I struct
that caused me to go "gah!" was that I got the good old "cannot represent
binary changes in diff" problem, which is when I discovered this big fat
tarball...
> Note that upstream includes a 'debian' directory: the upstream author
> apparantly did develpment in Debian sid, since the sid version has
> changes to the upstream changelog (additions), and already bumps the
> reported version number as 1.0.3 (!), but hasn't yet been released on
> GNU's website.
>
> Since there was no upstream release since March 2001, maybe this package
> should be removed from the archive altogether.
>
I'm all for that :-)
Reply to: