> then, in .., dpkg-source looks for _.orig.tar.gz.
> If
> found, it creates a diff. If that orig.tar.gz is NOT found, it makes a
> full
> tar.
>
> Nothing more complex than that.
Indeed. I had org.tar.gz (typo) and couldn't see what was wrong. Thanks!
YA
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > So this is where I get lost: how can you package as non-native *while
> > including a complete debian/ subdir in the upstream version*?
>
> There is no problem with this. The Tool looks o
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> So this is where I get lost: how can you package as non-native *while
> including a complete debian/ subdir in the upstream version*?
There is no problem with this. The Tool looks only at the Version number in
changelog and the existe
> Compare these oddities with the fact that there are _no_ problems for you
> to package your program non-native while including a complete debian/
> subdir in the upstream version and I hope you understand why it's better
> to package your program non-native.
So this is where I get lost: how can
> The discussion about what is wrong with making external packages
> native is reiterated once every few months, and I'm not going to
> repeat it here. Search the archives.
I read some of the discussion (and am going to read all of it). I think that
there are a number of advantages to having the d
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 02:18:09AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > Policy only mentions them in two places, and doesn't explain the term
> > anywhere. Under 'dates in version numbers':
> >
> > Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
> > especially for Debian) whos
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 02:18:09AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > > Surely this is documented in the Policy or the Developers' Reference?
> >
> > I thought the same thing. Before I replied to this post, I tried to look
> > up
> > a reference, and I was amazed that there wasn't one. The FAQ was t
> > Surely this is documented in the Policy or the Developers' Reference?
>
> I thought the same thing. Before I replied to this post, I tried to look
> up
> a reference, and I was amazed that there wasn't one. The FAQ was the only
> place that mentioned it, and all that it said was that a nativ
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:06:46PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:03:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> > > So I guess that as long as the explanation in maint-guide says that a
> > > native
> > > Debian package is a package that builds with no modifications, not just a
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:03:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 06:35:20PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > > A Debian native source package is one which has no .diff.gz, because the
> > > Debian source code and the upstream source code are the same thing. This
> > > means th
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:03:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > So I guess that as long as the explanation in maint-guide says that a native
> > Debian package is a package that builds with no modifications, not just a
> > package developed specifically for Debian, it will be clear for everybody.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 06:35:20PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > A Debian native source package is one which has no .diff.gz, because the
> > Debian source code and the upstream source code are the same thing. This
> > means that the source tarball contains a debian/ directory with the
> > necess
> A Debian native source package is one which has no .diff.gz, because the
> Debian source code and the upstream source code are the same thing. This
> means that the source tarball contains a debian/ directory with the
> necessary packaging infrastructure. This configuration is used for
> packag
13 matches
Mail list logo
