On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 11:37:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I repackage openafs, for instance, because upstream distributes OpenAFS as > two separate tarballs and dpkg support for multiple upstream source > tarballs is not yet available, because there's *one* file in the MacOS > packaging that Debian cares about not at all which is covered under a > non-free license, and because, since I'm repackaging anyway, I may as well > drop the (uninteresting for Debian) giant WINNT directory and save 8MB of > archive space. Oh no, I bet there's another point of DevRef contention for you ..
| 6.7.8.2. | | There may be cases where it is desirable to repackage the source even | though upstream distributes a `.tar.gz' that could in principle be | used in its pristine form. The most obvious is if _significant_ space | savings can be achieved by recompressing the tar archive or by | removing genuinely useless cruft from the upstream archive. Use your | own discretion here, but be prepared to defend your decision if you | repackage source that could have been pristine. ... | 3. _should_, except where impossible for legal reasons, preserve the | entire building and portablility infrastructure provided by the | upstream author. For example, it is not a sufficient reason for | omitting a file that it is used only when building on MS-DOS. | Similarly, a Makefile provided by upstream should not be omitted | even if the first thing your `debian/rules' does is to overwrite | it by running a configure script. | | (_Rationale:_ It is common for Debian users who need to build | software for non-Debian platforms to fetch the source from a | Debian mirror rather than trying to locate a canonical upstream | distribution point). This is another thing I was going to do with a new saods9 revision (previously, I was stipping libraries which Debian already includes).. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
