Le Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:33:58AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > I think it needs some clarifying words to explain contradictory advise > which most probably is confusing at best to Scott and other upstream > developers of upstream. My mail contained basically three arguments > against a debian/ dir in the upstream tarball and only one of these > three (the last item) might be a weak argument considering the new tools > we have can deal with this reasonably. I fail to see a reason why we > should break good old principles which are reasonable also these days > only because there are tools which are able to deal with such issues.
Hi Andreas, I answer on debian-med only to avoid adding to the confusion. My opinion is that it has always been a fallacy to criticize upstream for having debian directories. Most problems with upstream debian directories are a consequence of upstream being unavailable to fix any bug at all, rather than something specific to this directory. In line with this, I also think that the approach taken in the 3.0 (quilt) format, to discard the debian directory completely, is a total regression. Luckily, we can use the format 1.0 when no other special feature is needed. The format 3.0 (native) is also quite handy. For the packages that I started and on which I am still a major contributor, I would like Upstream to include a debian directory in his source tarballs. Other developers may dislike it for their package, and this is a choice that I respect. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
