Quoting Colin Watson (2018-02-12 13:18:04) > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:09:50PM +0000, Wookey wrote: > > On 2018-02-12 11:22 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Huh. I hadn't thought of that option, but it seems peculiar and > > > excessively baroque (it basically splits the patch into a remove and an > > > add, making it less obviously identical to the one submitted upstream > > > and harder to keep track of in git). Is there a strong reason to take > > > that approach? > > > > I'd have done the same as Simon. The main advantage is that it makes > > the tarball free software, which we generally don't get any leeway > > about > > The same advantage is gained by simply patching the replacement code > into the regenerated tarball in a single step, rather than removing in > one step and adding in another.
The tarball should contain only upstream code. Not patched code (then you arguably are making a fork). Omitting some files when redistributing an upstream project is common and well-documented - please follow that same pattern. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private