-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * gregor herrmann [Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:15:07 +0100]: > >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:30 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > >> > > Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make >> > > tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the >> > > .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier? >> > You should not, dpkg-source copes well enough. > >> True, on the other hand the Developer's Reference suggests in >> 6.7.8.2: > >> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz >> [..] >> 4. should use -.orig as the name >> of the top-level directory in its tarball. This makes it possible >> to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones. > >> Is this recommendation moot? > > No, not really. Note that in this case we were not talking about a > repackaged tarball, but just one with the "bunzip & gzip" dance. > Incidentally, the version in Debian was to be 4.0~beta1 instead of the > upstream 4.0-beta1, and Pau wondered if *this* needed a repacking, which > it did not. > > Hope that was clear enough. :-)
To further clarify: What Adeodato says would be accurate in case the packagename matches the directory name, which is not the case here. To actually match the package name, I would need to repackage because the original tarball uncompresses to "libmsn-4.0-beta" but it should uncompress to "libmsn0.1-4.0~beta1". If I am to abide by rule 6.7.8.2, renaming "libmsn" -> "libmsn0.1" should be done, and therefore this package is no longer just a bunzip & gzip case. - -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFJI0uz/DzYv9iGJzsRAmEwAKDRdFrHlF7LPVkhGEtdyGHDyG7SFQCfa8yq 5MOA2N7sWvvdeOe2XL/pepk= =zgGc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
