Hi Amul, On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 06:25:33PM -0500, Amul Shah wrote: > > you totally missed the point what we need to build the package. As I > > said from the beginning the difference between the > > gtm_<version>_linux_i686_pro.tar.gz and > > gtm_<version>_linux_i686_src.tar.gz are not clear to me. You claimed > > that V60003 would have been the latext fis-gtm version and I can confirm > > that there is > > > > gtm_V60003_linux_i686_pro.tar.gz > > > > available but this file does not contain the SOURCE. The latest > > download file which really contains source files is > > > > gtm_V60001_linux_i686_src.tar.gz > > > > To clarify, the GT.M binary archive has never shipped with the sources. > Previously, we uploaded to SourceForge two archives per platform, one for the > binaries and one for the sources. FIS releases GT.M as open source on VMS and > Linux IA32 and x86_64. As part of the after hackathon (many thanks to Luis, > Brad and Yaroslav for their help then and afterwards) todo items, I merged > all sources into one unified tar archive containing the sources for Linux > (IA32 and x86_64) and VMS. > > I also renamed the archive to use fis-gtm-<version major>-<version > minor>-<sub minor version>.tar.gz which unpacked into a directory with the > same name as the archive without the tar.gz. Previously the archive untarred > to the current working directory which meant that someone had to create the > target directory for the sources, change directory into it and untar the > archive.
While this is perfectly sensible I was not aware of exactly this change. > The binary archives are available from the following links: > http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/files/GT.M-amd64-Linux/V6.0-003/ > http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/files/GT.M-x86-Linux/V6.0-003/ > > The source archive is available from the following link: > http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/files/GT.M-x86-Linux-src/V6.0-003/ > > The same sources are also available via SourceForge CVS. > > I have a strong feeling that I’m not saying anything new to you. May be I was not reading your previous mails studiously enough but exactly this was the information I needed and this was totally new to me. I tried to express this in my mail on month ago[1] where I used the word "urgently" in connection to clarification between 'pro' and 'src' because we needed to create a working watch file first. When I yesterday tried to fetch the tarball with the watch file which I assumed to be valid I endedt up with the binary distribution. That's why I was wondering whether you were assuming that we would package the binaries ... > With respect to not understanding the principles behind packaging, I would > say that I don’t know what the principles are. Hence no understanding. For > that I apologize. My knowledge is completely adhoc. Well, in the case above probably the main principle is beeing more verbose in case some open questions are remaining. In your last mail you have precisely answered these. Thanks for this and sorry if I was a bit grumpy yesterday night. > To get this going forward, do I need to push the archive somewhere as part of > the GIT repository? Or is it the watch file that needs fixing? The watch file is just fixed in the packaging git repository now. > Is FIS expected to ship binaries and sources in the same archive for Debian > packaging? No, we do not need the binaries at all. We just *build* the binaries on our own and they are considered as waste inside a source tarball - so please keep them outside. There is one remaining question: In the packaging git in debian/upstream-files/ there are some external README files (GTM_V6.0-001_Release_Notes.html) which are included into the packaging as upstream changelog. BTW, missing to specify the proper license for these files was finally the reason for the rejection. From my point of view these files are doing more harm than good. Besides this rejection it always creates manual work - for instance I now need to fetch the file for the new version. If this changelog is not included in your source tarball it is probably not important enough for the user to be shipped inside the binary Debian package. So why not simply providing a link inside README.Debian where the user can find the needed information instead of creating manual work over and over and blowing up the debian/copyright file with an extra copy of GFDL? In short: Where is the download location of GTM_V6.0-003_Release_Notes.html and would you agree to just provide a link to this location instead of the complete file? Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2013/10/msg00083.html -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
