Thanks for both answers, thats what I wanted to hear :-) On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:10:31PM +0100, Bart Schuller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:11:59PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > relative to this source. Now for reference I looked into other packages for > > reference and noted that some people repackage the upstream source, where it > > is not necessary. Easily notable when you look at the owner and group of the > > orig source. > > Very good observation. I also make it a point to use the real upstream > source where it can be done. I think a reason for repackaging is that > the tools make it easy: > > tar xvfz /somewhere/foo-2.23.tar.gz > cd foo-2.23 > dh_make and you will immediately notice here, that you have two source tar balls (also when you mix up "-" and "_" in the file name), which most probably differ in file size. dh_make also tells you if it uses the existing orig.tar.gz or if it creates one. > At this point if you go on and then finaly do a "debuild", you'll get a > repackaged source. What you should do is follow the above with: > > cd .. > rm -rf foo-2.23.orig > cp /somewhere/foo-2.23.tar.gz foo-2.23.orig.tar.gz > > This way you'll be using the real original source. If you rename/copy the source first to foo_2.23.orig.tar.gz you don't have to rm, cp later. But in principle that is excactly what I am doing. The other developer (no names here) said, that "all" packages use repacked source, so thats the correct way.
Anybody got a reference where excatly this is mentioned in policy/packaging manual (yeah, I know, I am lazy, just got a REJECT, since copyright: GPL is indeed a bit short ;-) Christian
