Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Le Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:35:08PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : By my reading of ‘copyright-format/1.0’ (the “Machine-readable debian/copyright file” specification), the normative place for that information is the “Source” field: Source Formatted text, no synopsis: an explanation of where the upstream source came from. Typically this would be a URL, but it might be a free-form explanation. The Debian Policy section 12.5 requires this information unless there are no upstream sources, which is mainly the case for native Debian packages. If the upstream source has been modified to remove non-free parts, that should be explained in this field. Because of that explicit specification, and that such repacking needs to be in an automated program or configuration anyway and explained in the “Source” field, I think adding another special place for this information is unnecessary duplication. Hi Ben, http://bugs.debian.org/685506 tracks the proposal of adding a Files-Excluded in the next version of the specification. Your comment implies that the definition of the Source field should be changed together with the addition of Files-Excluded, and I think that it is totally doable. People who like the information to be in debian/copyright worked on an implementation that is used and now supported in devscripts. In contrary, people who like the information to be somewhere else, however good are their reasons, did not produce a viable alternative. Unless there is a concrete commitment for creating a robust and well-accepted alternative, I think that there is no point discussing the issue further. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131210085912.gd23...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Hi Ben, On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 09:07:01PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: I was just thinking a link might be useful for folks landing on the LibraryStyleGuide page, but I don't feel strongly about it. I have written URL:https://wiki.debian.org/BenFinney/software/repack, do you think that is worth linking to (perhaps if I put it at a different Wiki page) from the Python library style guide? Can you please confirm that you have realised https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements and that next version of devscripts will contain an uscan that is able to remove files easily without extra scripts? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131209095316.ge7...@an3as.eu
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu writes: On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 09:07:01PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: I have written URL:https://wiki.debian.org/BenFinney/software/repack, do you think that is worth linking to (perhaps if I put it at a different Wiki page) from the Python library style guide? Can you please confirm that you have realised https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements and that next version of devscripts will contain an uscan that is able to remove files easily without extra scripts? I think adding a field to ‘debian/copyright’ for that purpose is a bad idea, so I am unlikely to incorporate that functionality into the document. -- \“The whole area of [treating source code as intellectual | `\property] is almost assuring a customer that you are not going | _o__) to do any innovation in the future.” —Gary Barnett | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7wtxehmlr5@benfinney.id.au
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Stuart Prescott stu...@debian.org writes: In the current copyright-format/1.0, people are including repackaging information with a Comment field, as an explanatory text to the Source field or with some other ad hoc field name. By my reading of ‘copyright-format/1.0’ (the “Machine-readable debian/copyright file” specification), the normative place for that information is the “Source” field: Source Formatted text, no synopsis: an explanation of where the upstream source came from. Typically this would be a URL, but it might be a free-form explanation. The Debian Policy section 12.5 requires this information unless there are no upstream sources, which is mainly the case for native Debian packages. If the upstream source has been modified to remove non-free parts, that should be explained in this field. Because of that explicit specification, and that such repacking needs to be in an automated program or configuration anyway and explained in the “Source” field, I think adding another special place for this information is unnecessary duplication. Consolidating this information in one place seems like a good idea which was the very rationale behind #413320 and then these uscan improvements. That's the first I'd heard of bug#413320 (thank you for bringing it to my attention). It's a shame that in the intervening years these contradictions between different parts of policy and tools have grown. -- \ “Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the | `\ occurrence of the improbable.” —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7wppp5mcwz@benfinney.id.au
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org writes: On Dec 05, 2013, at 06:27 PM, Ben Finney wrote: Are you expecting ‘debian/repack’ to be significantly different when repacking Python-language packages, as opposed to the general case of repacking an upstream source tarball? What differences would be great enough to warrant a Python-library-specific recipe? I doubt most packages will need repacking. Perhaps not most. But I see the proportion of upstream source tarballs released with non-source files increasing, and hence the need to re-pack those tarballs increasing. I was just thinking a link might be useful for folks landing on the LibraryStyleGuide page, but I don't feel strongly about it. I have written URL:https://wiki.debian.org/BenFinney/software/repack, do you think that is worth linking to (perhaps if I put it at a different Wiki page) from the Python library style guide? -- \ “One time a cop pulled me over for running a stop sign. He | `\said, ‘Didn't you see the stop sign?’ I said, ‘Yeah, but I | _o__)don't believe everything I read.’” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7w61r2nvi2@benfinney.id.au
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Dec 05, 2013, at 06:27 PM, Ben Finney wrote: We already have URL:https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source, in particular URL:https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source#Repackaging_orig.tar. Are you expecting ‘debian/repack’ to be significantly different when repacking Python-language packages, as opposed to the general case of repacking an upstream source tarball? What differences would be great enough to warrant a Python-library-specific recipe? Not particularly, and I doubt most packages will need repacking. I was just thinking a link might be useful for folks landing on the LibraryStyleGuide page, but I don't feel strongly about it. -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205201340.425c657a@anarchist
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) Awesome, thanks for your work on that. That said, the choice of debian/copyright as the location for files to be excluded seems awkward/weird. I would have chosen debian/watch myself. Is it??? http://lists.debian.org/20131203194424.ga26...@gmail.com -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fds-rmwcn1xaurvsyiddnfxbfoqzfnler9oyyzn6m...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
* Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 08:43: uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and d/copyright before you can run uscan. *sigh* -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204081249.ga9...@jwilk.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Hi, On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:12:49AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 08:43: uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and d/copyright before you can run uscan. *sigh* Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... By the way: currently you also have to audit another file in addition to d/watch if you need to exclude some files. So the solution is not actually a step back - it is just more structured now. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204094106.gc22...@an3as.eu
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
* Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 10:41: uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and d/copyright before you can run uscan. *sigh* AFAICS they way get_main_source_dir() is currently implemented lets malicious upstream to plant files in their tarball that would cause arbitrary code execution... Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net By the way: currently you also have to audit another file in addition to d/watch if you need to exclude some files. Unless you knew in advance that there's nothing to exclude, which was most often the case, and you could guess it just by looking at version. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204103001.ga6...@jwilk.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2013-12-04, 19:58: Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net (actually https://lists.debian.org/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net) D'oh. Hi Jakub, Debian has what its developers implement. I am sure that if somebody steps up and does the actual work of implementing a better solution and migrating the existing information, Andreas will complain. s/complain/comply/ perhaps? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204111348.ga9...@jwilk.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Le Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Jakub Wilk a écrit : * Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2013-12-04, 19:58: Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net (actually https://lists.debian.org/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net) D'oh. Hi Jakub, Debian has what its developers implement. I am sure that if somebody steps up and does the actual work of implementing a better solution and migrating the existing information, Andreas will complain. s/complain/comply/ perhaps? D'oh as well. Indeed, I meant will not complain, sorry for the noise... -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204114901.gd15...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:49:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: better solution and migrating the existing information, Andreas will complain. s/complain/comply/ perhaps? D'oh as well. Indeed, I meant will not complain, sorry for the noise... I think all readers had the proper mind reading abilities to understand you in the first place. ;-) I hereby confirm that I would have been more than happy if somebody else would have implementet the functionality before me or if somebody else will enhance it to something even better. Since all is machine readable some automatic migration would be quite easy to do. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204124710.gd22...@an3as.eu
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:30:01AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: AFAICS they way get_main_source_dir() is currently implemented lets malicious upstream to plant files in their tarball that would cause arbitrary code execution... Would you mind proposing a proper fix and forward it to the according bug report to let other people tha readers of debian-python know. Kind regards and thanks for any helpful hint Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204124831.ge22...@an3as.eu
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org writes: On Dec 04, 2013, at 01:36 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote: Having uscan call debian/rules get-orig-source is quite difficult to do in a policy-compliant way (as already noted by Jakub) as the location for the munged tarball is different. Having uscan call a debian/repack from d/watch seems a little more sane only because there's no policy saying what d/repack must do; having uscan do the repacking itself with something like Files- Excluded from d/copyright is even nicer and devscripts in git can do this. If you have a good example of a d/repack recipe, please do add it to the LibraryStyleGuide wiki page. We already have URL:https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source, in particular URL:https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source#Repackaging_orig.tar. Are you expecting ‘debian/repack’ to be significantly different when repacking Python-language packages, as opposed to the general case of repacking an upstream source tarball? What differences would be great enough to warrant a Python-library-specific recipe? -- \ “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a | `\ thought without accepting it.” —Aristotle | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7wiov3oiyp@benfinney.id.au
Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Hi. I haven't spotted anything recommending a get-orig-source target in debian/rules in the team's docs. I think it could be an interesting recommendation, as since the practice seems to be only versioning the contents of the debian/ subdir, it could be interesting to document, through that target where to get the orig tarball. I guess most of the time, this could be derived from the debian/watch. Maybe using something like : https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source Any comments ? Best regards, -- Olivier BERGER http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d2leos95@inf-8660.int-evry.fr
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Dec 03, 2013, at 04:42 PM, Olivier Berger wrote: I haven't spotted anything recommending a get-orig-source target in debian/rules in the team's docs. I guess most of the time, this could be derived from the debian/watch. Right, because most of the time svn-buildpackage (which I'm guessing most team members use) will just DTRT. Maybe using something like : https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source But this might be a good page to link to from the team pages for folks who need something more complicated. It probably also makes sense to document debian/watch for the typical PyPI package. It's a wiki - go for it! :) Cheers, -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131203105346.6627e994@anarchist
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
[Olivier Berger, 2013-12-03] Hi. I haven't spotted anything recommending a get-orig-source target in debian/rules in the team's docs. I think it could be an interesting recommendation, as since the practice seems to be only versioning the contents of the debian/ subdir, it could be interesting to document, through that target where to get the orig tarball. I guess most of the time, this could be derived from the debian/watch. if there's working debian/watch file, there's no need to add get-orig-source (and to be honest, I prefer debian/rules without get-orig-source if debian/watch is available) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131203155739.go3...@sts0.p1otr.com
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org writes: [Olivier Berger, 2013-12-03] Hi. I haven't spotted anything recommending a get-orig-source target in debian/rules in the team's docs. I think it could be an interesting recommendation, as since the practice seems to be only versioning the contents of the debian/ subdir, it could be interesting to document, through that target where to get the orig tarball. I guess most of the time, this could be derived from the debian/watch. if there's working debian/watch file, there's no need to add get-orig-source (and to be honest, I prefer debian/rules without get-orig-source if debian/watch is available) What's your rationale, Piotr ? I'd understand if there was something in debhelper/dh-python that would automatically handle debian/watch, but that's not the case, AFAICT... so, what harm is there to make things explicit (in case of QA maintenance or other situations where using svn-buildpackage isn't waranted) ? Best regards, -- Olivier BERGER http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8738m9q5q9@inf-8660.int-evry.fr
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
* Olivier Berger olivier.ber...@telecom-sudparis.eu, 2013-12-03, 17:06: Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org writes: if there's working debian/watch file, there's no need to add get-orig-source (and to be honest, I prefer debian/rules without get-orig-source if debian/watch is available) +1 What's your rationale, Piotr ? I'd understand if there was something in debhelper/dh-python that would automatically handle debian/watch, but that's not the case, AFAICT... so, what harm is there to make things explicit It harms everyone who reviews the package. It's impossible to write g-o-s target that is both policy-compliant and easy to understand. I don't want to waste time glaring at extra 10 lines of code only to realize it's a fancy wrapper over uscan. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131203164231.ga...@jwilk.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 05:42:31PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Olivier Berger olivier.ber...@telecom-sudparis.eu, 2013-12-03, 17:06: Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org writes: if there's working debian/watch file, there's no need to add get-orig-source (and to be honest, I prefer debian/rules without get-orig-source if debian/watch is available) +1 What's your rationale, Piotr ? I'd understand if there was something in debhelper/dh-python that would automatically handle debian/watch, but that's not the case, AFAICT... so, what harm is there to make things explicit It harms everyone who reviews the package. It's impossible to write g-o-s target that is both policy-compliant and easy to understand. I don't want to waste time glaring at extra 10 lines of code only to realize it's a fancy wrapper over uscan. Perhaps dh(1) should sprout a default get-orig-source target that just pokes uscan. That way, all packages with the %: dh $@ stanza will get it for free. Looks like there's a bug for it already: http://bugs.debian.org/515856 -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Olivier Berger wrote: I haven't spotted anything recommending a get-orig-source target in debian/rules in the team's docs. Policy recommends it, that should be enough? http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6emu_h+mozqo880+ktxembfuorceisyw6u0nogojrk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Hi Paul, Policy recommends it, that should be enough? http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules tl;dr: is get-orig-source supposed to be a duplicate of uscan (d/watch) or apt-get source? And why do we want to reimplement either? And why do we want yet another location for the download URL in the packaging? I'd personally say get-orig-source (optional) is quite different to get- orig-source (recommended) but then the entire language of this part of policy is loose at best. There's plenty of discussion about what policy actually means here: which version should be downloaded, exactly? -- the name orig seems to imply getting the current source tarball, policy suggests it should get the latest upstream release and many implementations differ from this. And of course the maintainer is supposed to have a suitable crystal ball to know how to repackage version N+1 when they package version N... because sites never change their download URL and upstreams never add or remove crap from their tarballs. This has reached the point where there's a feeling that it would better to remove this recommendation from policy altogether. http://bugs.debian.org/466550 This bug isn't the first time it has been discussed, it's just the current discussion in the BTS against d-policy. It will have its 6th birthday soon. Given the lack of agreement about what get-orig-source should do, my feeling is that it is heading even further into the let's get rid of it zone. Having uscan call debian/rules get-orig-source is quite difficult to do in a policy-compliant way (as already noted by Jakub) as the location for the munged tarball is different. Having uscan call a debian/repack from d/watch seems a little more sane only because there's no policy saying what d/repack must do; having uscan do the repacking itself with something like Files- Excluded from d/copyright is even nicer and devscripts in git can do this. Like so many things in Debian there is more than one way to do something that is truly simple and for which there probably should only be one way. It would be nice if we didn't have more than one way of doing something as simple as fetching an upstream source -- it's harder for automation, it's harder for QA, it's harder for new maintainers and it's harder for casual bug squashers. Without undertaking any sort of survey of packages, my feeling is that the project is centralising on d/watch + uscan instead of get-orig-source. cheers Stuart -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprintBE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/l7m4em$t54$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Stuart Prescott wrote: tl;dr: is get-orig-source supposed to be a duplicate of uscan (d/watch) or apt-get source? Neither. As policy attempts to explain, get-orig-source is for the cases where the Debian orig tarball is not bit-for-bit identical to the upstream tarball. If you have a debian/watch file, get-orig-source is pointless. A get-orig-source target is only useful for documenting (and automating) how to convert upstream sources (in git/hg/tarballs/whatever) into Debian orig tarballs. uscan will never be flexible enough to deal with every upstream so I think the right ways forward are: Add support for more sites to [1]. uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. The default dh get-orig-source to invoke uscan if debian/watch is available. Policy to define get-orig-source more clearly. Re version numbers, I can see use-cases for both getting the current as from debian/changelog and the latest available. So a standard way to pass a version, which could be 'current' or 'latest' or another version would be the right thing to do. Personally I also feel that debian/watch and get-orig-source need to be maintained outside the packaging, probably somewhere like the new PTS (tracker.d.o) once that is up, running and has more contributors. 1. http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/qa/trunk/cgi-bin/fakeupstream.cgi?view=markup -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6hcfkma6+ygyhpuge_bto_3pftrd_dxbej1eqawn-u...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:59:33AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) The default dh get-orig-source to invoke uscan if debian/watch is available. Is it??? My personal opinion is that only in the cases where uscan is unable to fetch what we are using as original tarball a get-orig-source target makes sense. As far as I read policy this is the specification. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204074354.ge19...@an3as.eu
