Re: Accepted gdesklets-data 0.13.1 (all source)
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:32:10PM -0400, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Source: gdesklets-data Binary: gdesklets-data Architecture: source all Version: 0.13.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gdesklets-data - displays and sensors for gdesklets Closes: 207088 Changes: gdesklets-data (0.13.1) unstable; urgency=low . * Fixed the wrong directory in README.Debian (Closes: #207088). Files: 85b18c208186cbe6a86b48c23e78b9d3 526 x11 optional gdesklets-data_0.13.1.dsc 5b5c46862fbb651b34ef1c090cbcd776 344185 x11 optional gdesklets-data_0.13.1.tar.gz c18e378be01cbdb68d8121b464eada4b 319230 x11 optional gdesklets-data_0.13.1_all.deb Is it a common practice to use this kind of numbering (without a second part after a dash) for what I presume is a debian-made tarball (multiple upstream tarballs put together). gdesklets-data_0.13.1_all.deb Also (related) why not use a orig.tar.gz file? My understanding is that the difference between 0.13.1 and 0.13, because only the README.Debian has changed, it would have been a good thing to base it on the previous tarball. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.
Re: Accepted gdesklets-data 0.13.1 (all source)
christophe barbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it a common practice to use this kind of numbering (without a second part after a dash) for what I presume is a debian-made tarball (multiple upstream tarballs put together). gdesklets-data_0.13.1_all.deb Also (related) why not use a orig.tar.gz file? My understanding is that the difference between 0.13.1 and 0.13, because only the README.Debian has changed, it would have been a good thing to base it on the previous tarball. Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream tarball corresponding to this archive). -n version are revision on a same upstream tarball, but in this case we don't have any .orig.tar.gz Cheers, Sebastien Bacher
Re: Accepted gdesklets-data 0.13.1 (all source)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream tarball corresponding to this archive). Thanks for the explaination. -n version are revision on a same upstream tarball, but in this case we don't have any .orig.tar.gz Is there something preventing the use of a .orig.tar.gz tarball. It would be nice to see a .orig.tar.gz containing only upstream bits and the debian stuff in the diff, for review purpose and for bandwith saving. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Re: Accepted gdesklets-data 0.13.1 (all source)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:08:51AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream tarball corresponding to this archive). Thanks for the explaination. -n version are revision on a same upstream tarball, but in this case we don't have any .orig.tar.gz Is there something preventing the use of a .orig.tar.gz tarball. It would be nice to see a .orig.tar.gz containing only upstream bits and the debian stuff in the diff, for review purpose and for bandwith saving. Again. It's a debian _native_ package, there is no such thing as upstream in native packages. Regards Javi
Re: Accepted gdesklets-data 0.13.1 (all source)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:08:51AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream tarball corresponding to this archive). Thanks for the explaination. -n version are revision on a same upstream tarball, but in this case we don't have any .orig.tar.gz Is there something preventing the use of a .orig.tar.gz tarball. It would be nice to see a .orig.tar.gz containing only upstream bits and the debian stuff in the diff, for review purpose and for bandwith saving. Again. It's a debian _native_ package, there is no such thing as upstream in native packages. That's an obviously circular argument. Why is it native if it wasn't written especially for Debian (policy 3.2.1)? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Accepted gdesklets-data 0.13.1 (all source)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: Is there something preventing the use of a .orig.tar.gz tarball. It would be nice to see a .orig.tar.gz containing only upstream bits and the debian stuff in the diff, for review purpose and for bandwith saving. Again. It's a debian _native_ package, there is no such thing as upstream in native packages. What makes it a native package? Or if you prefer, what prevent it of not being a native package? One of the inconvenient of the 'native' format used for a package made of upstream tarballs is that it makes it difficult to review (and also waste some bandwith). In this particular case, the diff.gz could certainly contains only the debian directory. But I agree that the tarball will be custom made for debian. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. -- Yogi Berra
