On Sunday 30 April 2006 10:05, Russ Allbery wrote: --snip-- > One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target as part of the > review is that it ensures that the derivation of the .orig.tar.gz file is > automated and reproducible, making it easier and quicker to package the > *next* upstream release of the software.
True. > >> In all cases, I don't see much purpose in having a separate > >> README.Debian-source document. > > > > Well, it was a choice made in the past. In my opinion it was a good > > choice. But feel free to discuss this again, and have the Debian > > Reference changed about this. > > Well, discussing it is exactly what I'm doing right now. :) Obviously if > I can't convince anyone here, there's no point in filing a bug against the > Developer's Reference for a change that has no consensus. I failed to see what is wrong with the DevRef. The mentioned paragraph about repackaged orig.tar.gz says that: 1) repackaging <must be> be documented in README.whatever 2) and that <it is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target> to automate the repackaging process. As far as I understand your intention is to change this to: 1) as a "good idea" 2) as a "must" Hm, I think that both 1) and 2) must be a "must" because we have different audiencies: experienced users/developers who need and understand the automation target, and mortal end users who are just interested in simple words describing what has been changed and how within the non-DFSG-compliant upstream tarball. > >> Maybe if the repackaging were so complex so as to not be representable > >> in a debian/rules get-orig-source target. > > > > Repackaging upstream sources should be exceptional. Also, verifying a > > repackaged .orig.tar.gz needs full attention anyway, so doing the > > repackaging manually to verify is good anyway. > > I find automated processes more reliable than manual processes. If it's > an exceptional case that requires careful review, it's even *more* > important to automate where possible so that humans don't miss things by > accident and can review the information-dense representation (the > automation) as opposed to the information-diffuse representation (the > results of the automation). Agreed. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]