Hello, On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 12:00:45AM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:43:52PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > Sylvain, > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:23:40PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:46:01PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:44:10PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can also move packages/ocaml-tools to projects/ocaml-tools, > > > > > > since there is no real upstream apart from us who are injecting things > > > > > > in it... > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand. Of course there is an upstream - in fact there > > > > > are (at the moment) three of them. We just merge them into one > > > > > orig.tar.gz tarball, and build the package from it. > > > > > > > Well, correct me if i am wrong : all upstream ( the one who put small > > > > files together, not the real up-upstream ) are all debian developper and > > > > > > The only upstream(s) are those who author the files. The people > > > who bundle them are not upstream. > > > > > > > ;-) That is why i am refering them as up-upstream authors ( it is not a > > typo error ). It is just to make the distinction on the job consisting > > of creating upstream source -> package and the job consisting of > > upstream sources -> file collection -> package > > Well, we have an established terminology in debian. You can of course > invent your own if you wish. >
No, thanks... It was just an ( bad ) idea of mine. > > > > the version of the package is tightly bound to debian ( ie this > > > > collection of file is targeted to debian )... > > > > > > No, the version number is tightly bound to the date. > > > > > > > Really ???? You answered this great question i am asking myself : what > > does 2003.10.03-1 means ? ( ;-) ) > > Please read section 3.2.1 of the Debian Policy (Version numbers based on > dates) > I know it... > > > > If this is the case, i think it is more interesting to use projects/ so > > > > we can easily add/remove/manage files. > > > > > > Why? ocaml-tools is a package, not a project. I don't understand > > > what you are aiming at. > > > > > > -Ralf. > > > > I am aiming at nothing, in fact. I just consider that is is simpler to > > add one file to a svn dir than to upload a full .tar.gz each time we > > need to add one file to this package. > > I agree that there should be a simpler way to assemble the orig.tar.gz > (I'm working on it). But I prefer to have all packages in the > directory "packages", and not somewhere else. > At least, you see my point, but after all, i really don't have any problem with the current, packaging, i was just thinking about the fact that this .orig.tar.gz doesn't reflect any single source, but a set of sources. But it is only an idea, just to talk. I don't have any personnal motivation, it was just a proposition. I don't criticize either... I hope nobody take it personnaly. Kind regard Sylvain LE GALL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
