Hi I got the link on the discussion from DWN NN39 and becouse I had been affected by the problem on the suject in the near past, I have some words to say as end user of Debian system...
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:01:46AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > Hi, > > > > many packages seem to contain .orig.tar.gz files which may or may not be > > directly related to the files actually available from upstream. That is > > unfortunate. > > > > I think that it would make sense to add a requirement to Policy that > > the .orig.tar.gz file should be an unmodified copy from upstream. > > > > If that is not possible or doesn't make sense for some reason, the way to > > go > > from there to here should be documented either textually or, preferably, > > achieved by running debian/package_upstream (or whatever). > This is already mentionned in Policy 4.8: > > `get-orig-source' (optional) > This target fetches the most recent version of the original > source package from a canonical archive site (via FTP or WWW, for > example), does any necessary rearrangement to turn it into the > original source tar file format described below, and leaves it in > the current directory. > > >Opinions? > > I have no problem with documenting *why* the source is not pristine, > but I refuse to be forced to document *how* to get the non pristine > one from the pristine one, unless you accept procedure like: > > 1)Unpack > 2)Look at each file whether it is DFSG free or not. If not, delete it. > 3)Repack. > > This cannot be automated. > > Most developers are lazy and will write a script to automate the process > if they can. In this case debian/get-orig-source is the policy > documented way to go. > > Developers use the changelog to document change to the upstream tarball > and I feel it is quite proper. > > I think we should rather make a best practice document on why and how > repackage upstream tarball. IMHO, this should be done more often, to > save bandwidth and disk space. > > Reasons I know : > > --- tarball does not exists, or is in a stupid format. > --- Files have stupid permissions. > --- tarball contains files at the root. > --- Some files are not DFSG free. > --- You can't add binary files (e.g. icons) in a diff. Using uuencode > is not optimal. Sometimes it is better to sneak them in the source > tarball. > --- tarball include large stuff that we don't want to package. > --- tarball contains 90% arch:all code and 10% arch:any code. > In this case it is better to split the tarball in two source > package, one arch:all and one arch:any, so you dont need to > unpack 20Mb of junk to build a 50kB program. > --- Some part of the tarball are pretty static. Again it is better > to split the tarball than to upload again and again the same static > code. > --- People use DBS and put the tarball in a larger tarball. I object on > this practice, but it is irrelevant to this discussion. > > In conlusion, I don't see any need to change policy. It is unclear from existent documentation (at least for the stable distribution) the orig.tar.gz IS NOT allways repaced upstream source :-( So consider this as bugreport at least for documentation, please... I see the reason why it is not allways posible to have orig.tar.gz the same as upstream... thenks for explanation... But, but, but... I'll better discribe the problem I have got: I had needed the XFree86 4.2.0 source for some reason, but I have wery limited internet connection, but I have full (with sources) Debian 3.0 r0 distro on cd which contain the source of XFree86 4.1.0 so I had downloaded the patch 4.1.0->4..2.0 form ftp.xfree86.org and went to home to contine the work at home in the week end... at home I had unpacked the xfree86.orig.tar.gz but the patch from Xfree86 site was not applied cleanly on the source from debian orig.tar.gz :-( so I have lost the week end for my work :-( PS sorry if I disturb you by mistake PSS sorry for my engilsh -- it is not my native language... With best regards, Dimitry > > Cheers, > Bill.
