On 07/31/2011 02:08 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Michael Tautschnig <[email protected]> [110730 13:29]: >>>> - auxiliary/converter is shipped as binary, although converter.cpp >>>> probably is >>>> its source!? >>> >>> Yes. What do you propose? Should I remove auxiliary/converter from the >>> source package? If so, how? Via a patch in debian/patches? > >> I think for all of the above you should speak to upstream about having them >> removed. I don't quite know about their responsiveness (or willingness to do >> so), hence for the moment you might want to start out with a repacked tar >> ball, >> [...] > > If you repackage anyway, removing those files would be good. But if you > otherwise do not need to repackage the orig.tar.gz, please try to avoid > it. > > If the package contains the source for those files, there is no need to > repackage the source. Repackaging a source means it gets much harder to > check if it is the original or if anyone tried to insert stuff there. > > Determining if that actually is the source might not be that easy in > some cases (sometimes only a .cpp might not be enough), but I think it > is definitely worth it. > > If there is no source missing, just make sure it is not used in the > debian build, for example by deleting it in debian/rules before doing > anything else (in most packages just before running configure is a very > good time). > > Bernhard R. Link > >
So, your recommendation would be to not create a +dfsg version just for the reason of removing generated files? That's good news for me, because I found that maintaining a dfsg_clean branch with git-buildpackage is a bit of a underdocumented PITA, and IMHO completely breaks when using pristine-tar. One question remains, though: should I re-generate those files (generated sources, Doxygen docs and PDF manual) when building the package? Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
