debian source format
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 09:51:42 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@Pixar.com>
I also agree that we should be distributing the original packages with
diff files, rather than patched packages with diff files. Perhaps we
should make that change while doing the ELF conversion.
I tried to make some noise about this too. The first con below, which
recently surfaced, made me think twice.
* Cons:
* Original distribution tarchives sometimes unpack into the current
directory. This may torture the novice.
* An extra "patch" step is needed to build the package. (Why isn't
this step in the debian.rules makefile?)
* Pros:
* No worries about whether the bug you've found was introduced by the
original author or the Debian package maintainer. Specifically,
you need not download another large .tar.gz to make sure.
* Most package changes are in the Debian portions, so only the (much
smaller) .diff.gz file needs to be up/downloaded. Note that
version number changes in both may make the large .tar.gz appear to
be out-of-date. Does the FTP site encourage the use of the rename
command? Of course, use of the rename command may torture mirrors.
Maybe the .tar.gz need not be renamed. The .diff.gz name could
describe the .tar.gz version patched from and the debian package
version patched to -- ala the GNU FTP site.)
Of course, there is always the facile pro/con argument "Who cares?". I am
not sure it amounts to a hill of beans. If you are munging source
packages, you shouldn't be surprised to be treated as an expert, capable of
background downloads, wary of reverse patches, cautious of reporting bugs
in second generation distributions...
Matt Birkholz <birkholz@midnight.com.>
PGP 2.6.2 Public Key ID = 74305425
Key Fingerprint = B3 34 FB 3E 3C FE E8 57 AA B4 B2 95 A7 C0 1E AF
Finger birkhol@primenet.com for key. (Note missing "z"; thank you, Primenet.)
Reply to: