* Jorgen Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 14:34]: > The discussion is about whether, after the removal of data from an > upstream .tar.gz, it is ok for it to be still named ".orig.tar.gz" > (with a version that does not exist upstream).
The question I was answering was about what I consider "fork". > One side of the dispute says ".orig.tar.gz is just a package we > name to mean 'well, that's roughly what upstream put in it, we > didn't add anything, but maybe we removed something". The other > side thinks that's somewhat unfair to the user, and says "if we > call it foo_1.3.orig.tar.gz, it damn well should be _exactly_ what > upstream released as version 1.3 of foo. If we modify what's in > there, it's not enough to create a new version - > foo_1.3dfsg.orig.tar.gz - but to rename the base name there, to > make it clear it's not foo, but some variation thereof - > foo-dfsg_1.3.orig.tar.gz". That's not the whole alternative. I think a .orig.tar.gz should only contain stuff that upstream released. For everything else there is the .diff.gz. > Should Debian enforce a policy here? There is a Developer's reference quite explicit about that topic and all those packages beside his. > If so, who decides on what the policy is? Surely not the ftp-masters. Ftp-masters have already to decide what proper splittings of packages are, what software they consider properly licensed for Debian. If anyone has to decide what goes in and what not, then that's the ftp-masters, currently. > Must we decide on a policy? Can't Manoj just package gnus-dfsg and > be done with it? Is that really such a big problem? I guess it would be less of an issue, if he did not insist of what almost everyone else has agreed on and I never saw disputed is "unethical". Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
