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

Bug#623970: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Bug#623970: Bug#623970: ITP: xul-ext-cookie-monster -- please package Iceweasel Cookie Monster extension



Am Freitag, den 09.09.2011, 19:26 +0200 schrieb Fabrizio Regalli:
> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 17:39 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 05:19:15PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 15:02 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > > >  * dpkg-source: error: unrepresentable changes to source
> > > > 
> > > >    As upstream does not ship .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2 for that matter) that
> > > >    Debian could directly use, we need to create a .orig.tar.gz from
> > > >    upstream source.
> > > > 
> > > >    So we are free to fiddle with upstream source in order to get the
> > > >    files as close as we would like upstream to ship them. I then
> > > >    strongly advocate to have a .orig.tar.gz where cookiemonster.jar
> > > >    is unpacked.
> > > > 
> > > >    That will also remove the useless patch in debian/patches and ease
> > > >    future reviews of upstream changes
> > > 
> > > Right. I started now from scratch and these problems are solved.
> > 
> > This one is not, IMHO.
> > 
> > It is *way* better to have an _unpacked_ source tree as upstream.
> > Otherwise, reviewing upstream changes is going to be a pain. Writing
> > patches against upstream source is going to be even more than that.
> 
> A 'repack.sh' script that grabs and unpack the .jar file and re-create
> the tarball could be a reasonable solution?

Please use xpi-repack (or xpi-unpack) instead of writing something own.

> Or download the xpi, unpack the jar and create .orig.tar.gz from it
> (including install.rdf file) is enough?

xpi-repack was written for converting a xpi files into a source tarball
for Debian (doing the extraction of the .jar files).

PS: Sorry for not having enough time for sponsoring.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: