On Sun 2016-05-08 02:45:40 -0400, Osamu Aoki <osamua...@e01.itscom.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> Package: devscripts >> Version: 2.16.4 >> Severity: normal >> Tags: patch >> >> Dear Maintainer, >> >> some upstreams (like sks) ship their tarballs as foo-1.1.5.tgz > > True and I was aware of it. > >> @ARCHIVE_EXT@ fails to locate this tarball. >> >> The attached patch should address this concern. > > I think it does but I think I had reason why I did not do this. > It may have been something to do with signiture verification. > I forgot what exactly put me off to add such extension ...
hm, do we really need to avoid it if the reason is not something we can remember? > You can always use explicit description in watch file if upstream uses > such extension. sure, but i'd prefer to just use the generic in case my upstreams change their minds and start using more normal. --dkg