On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:13:51AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I agree with that we should have a common pattern. But I would vote for > > a neutral extension not trying to describe the reasons for repackaging. > > Some kind of <name>_<version>.repack.tar.gz comes to mind. This makes > > clear that a changed upstream tarball is used. Those tarballs should > > feature a mandatory debian/README.repack which states clearly the > > reasons for the repackaging and debian/rules should have a mandatory > > get-orig-source target. > > We went back and forth on this several times on debian-mentors and I think > everyone finally agreed that debian/copyright is the correct place to > explain any repackaging of the upstream source. Since debian/copyright is > the standard place to explain where the upstream source came from, it's > the logical place for that information to go. Please let's not add a new > documentation file that isn't automatically collected by the PTS, > packages.d.o, etc.
Personnally I put it in debian/README.sources with instruction on how to generate the tarball from the upstream one. debian/README.sources is mentionned in another policy proposal. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
