Re: dfsg suffix
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 20:32, anatoly techtonik wrote: > Got it. Thanks. One last question: > > Can I upload the new version of a package what doesn't contain any > upstream changes? > I want to see how added debian/watch is picked up by various package > management tools. if it's just for debian/watch - I strongly advice not to upload it, stack up some other changes and then do the upload. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- 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/aanlktinkycvtkat4caqkm_z22q42cutdxbuntvmsz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg suffix
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > debian/README.Debian-source > might be good too, but given a tarball is (usually) repacked for legal > reasons, d/copyright seems a better place since "it's the file where > legal stuff is" that is true, BUT debian/copyright is to describe terms and conditions of what is actually shipped within a package, not what is stripped from the package ;) although indeed some little remark that some pieces are stripped (although usually .dfsg is actually signaling it already) might be handy -- .-. =-- /v\ = Keep in touch// \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192 Linux User^^-^^[17] -- 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/20101025183642.gm12...@onerussian.com
Re: dfsg suffix
Got it. Thanks. One last question: Can I upload the new version of a package what doesn't contain any upstream changes? I want to see how added debian/watch is picked up by various package management tools. -- anatoly t. -- 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/aanlktimrquo1fhdwpls9dakwdkhpwn4pofa2zwoxo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg suffix
Quoting "anatoly techtonik" : Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release? In this case the maintainer (I) was too lazy/sloppy/whatever to document it properly or add a debian/rules target to do the repacking. In this case, the SWF files of bitten were removed, because they are non-free. See debian/changelog. -- 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/20101025200344.17655025g1a3f...@webmail.in-berlin.de
Re: dfsg suffix
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 20:06, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright > > well, Disclaimer in debian/copyright serves to describe why software in > contrib or non-free. For details on what was done to sources I usually > use (when I do not forget ;)) > > debian/README.Debian-source might be good too, but given a tarball is (usually) repacked for legal reasons, d/copyright seems a better place since "it's the file where legal stuff is" Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- 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/aanlktintvac4xthkb8l+f1hdr4e4fx=agmgt0j=0-...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg suffix
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote: > No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright well, Disclaimer in debian/copyright serves to describe why software in contrib or non-free. For details on what was done to sources I usually use (when I do not forget ;)) debian/README.Debian-source -- .-. =-- /v\ = Keep in touch// \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192 Linux User^^-^^[17] -- 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/20101025180617.gl12...@onerussian.com
Re: dfsg suffix
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 02:00 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:53, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>>>> What dfsg suffix in package version is for? >>>>> In trac-bitten to be exact. >>>> >>>> It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines >>> >>> Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and >>> manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release? >> >> Yes, pretty much so. Or if the reasons do not apply any more, you can use the >> tarball as is. > > No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright > why, if not it's a bug (that should be filed it not there already); > also, a get-orig-source target in debian/rules would be nice to have. That's exactly what I understood from "figure out why tarball was repacked". It's usually either documented in debian/changelog or debian/copyright. -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: dfsg suffix
Twas brillig at 20:51:49 25.10.2010 UTC+03 when techto...@gmail.com did gyre and gimble: at> Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked at> and manually repack it again with the same changes to do new at> release? http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/trac-bitten/trac-bitten_0.6b2.dfsg-3/changelog#versionversion0.6b2.dfsg-1 -- http://fossarchy.blogspot.com/ pgp2C0rYe6ils.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dfsg suffix
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:53, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >>> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>>> What dfsg suffix in package version is for? >>>> In trac-bitten to be exact. >>> >>> It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. >>> >>> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines >> >> Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and >> manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release? > > Yes, pretty much so. Or if the reasons do not apply any more, you can use the > tarball as is. No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright why, if not it's a bug (that should be filed it not there already); also, a get-orig-source target in debian/rules would be nice to have. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- 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/aanlktinnn_qzkxwb5cev3i13vf4g_vuzyef_xdo3n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg suffix
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> What dfsg suffix in package version is for? >>> In trac-bitten to be exact. >> >> It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. >> >> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines > > Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and > manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release? Yes, pretty much so. Or if the reasons do not apply any more, you can use the tarball as is. -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: dfsg suffix
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> What dfsg suffix in package version is for? >> In trac-bitten to be exact. > > It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release? -- anatoly t. -- 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/aanlktinonyxdd1evxkt3oa8wzsenv5nzwmjfvf13r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg suffix
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > What dfsg suffix in package version is for? > In trac-bitten to be exact. It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
dfsg suffix
What dfsg suffix in package version is for? In trac-bitten to be exact. -- anatoly t. -- 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/aanlkti=hbnxh64obf+2nrhd+kwxgnobagh4zuzfjt...@mail.gmail.com
