Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package (fwd)
Philippe == Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Philippe and since the policy does not explicitely prohibit it a Philippe re-packaged xv like this. This is a flawed argument. Policy is never meant to be all encompassing, or even a good practices booklet. So there are a number of things that policxy does not prohibit, and yet they may still be incorrect. manoj -- If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish into it. William Orton Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package (fwd)
Hi, could someone else please read the discussion in #96458 answer Philippe? I'm tired of this frustrating discussion with someone who tried to make xv a native Debain package. TIA Adrian PS: Please Cc me because I'm not on this list. -- Forwarded message -- Date: 07 May 2001 17:41:23 -0700 From: Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 7 May 2001, Philippe Troin wrote: No, native vs. non-native is just the absence vs. presence of the debian revision suffix, but maybe I'm wrong. I could not find anything in the policy manual that says that native debian packages should have a .tar.gz source while the non-native debian packages should have a .orig.tar.gz + .diff.gz. A good explanation is in the Developer's Reference: Developper's reference is not policy. -- snip -- 5.5. Packages - There are two types of Debian packages, namely _source_ and _binary_ packages. Source packages consist of either two or three files: a `.dsc' file, and either a `.tar.gz' file or both an `.orig.tar.gz' and a `.diff.gz' file. If a package is developed specially for Debian and is not distributed outside of Debian, there is just one `.tar.gz' file which contains the sources of the program. If a package is distributed elsewhere too, the `.orig.tar.gz' file stores the so-called _upstream source code_, that is the source code that's distributed from the _upstream maintainer_ (often the author of the software). In this case, the `.diff.gz' contains the changes made by the Debian maintainer. The `.dsc' lists all the files in the source package together with checksums (`md5sums') and some additional info about the package (maintainer, version, etc.). I don't think there's anything in the policy that mandates that the non-native packages must come as a .orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz. The .tar.gz contains the upstream source if you look into it. Phil.
Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package (fwd)
Adrian Bunk wrote: could someone else please read the discussion in #96458 answer Philippe? I'm tired of this frustrating discussion with someone who tried to make xv a native Debain package. Well Phil is clearly ignoring the intent of policy, the reasons we have a .orig.tar.gz in the first place (can you say pristine source?), well established ways of doing things in the project, etc. From what you say, he's also on pretty shakey ground legally, doing this with a non-free package.. People who read policy like rules lawyers are often disappointed and often do foolish things. Please bring common sense with you when you open the policy manual. -- see shy jo
Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package (fwd)
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adrian Bunk wrote: could someone else please read the discussion in #96458 answer Philippe? I'm tired of this frustrating discussion with someone who tried to make xv a native Debain package. Well Phil is clearly ignoring the intent of policy, the reasons we have a .orig.tar.gz in the first place (can you say pristine source?), well established ways of doing things in the project, etc. The pristine source is inside the .tar.gz. Did anybody look at the package at all ? If you look at glibc_*.orig.tar.gz, is that the pristine source ? No. If we do not ship the pristine source, does it make sense to have this arbitrary distinction between .orig.tar.gz and .diff.gz ? I do not think so, and since the policy does not explicitely prohibit it a re-packaged xv like this. Anyways, the package is likely to get removed from the archive anyways since the license prohibits redistributing modified versions... so this discussion is moot. Phil.
Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package (fwd)
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote: ... People who read policy like rules lawyers are often disappointed and often do foolish things. Please bring common sense with you when you open the policy manual. When I read the policy like a lawyer I get answers like this was not intended and when I read the policy with common sense I get answers like the Developper's reference is not policy that Phil said in the discussion of #96458. I did think our policy contains the rules we follow to produce good packages and I was proud that we have something like this - at the moment I tend to see it as a piece of (virtual) paper that has less value than the words of the release manager. cu Adrian (who waits that ajt downgrades #97040) -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht, sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
