On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
> * Faheem Mitha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-17 01:12:46 +0000]: > > > > I've been trying to package subversion, version 1.1.0-rc2, > I think David already started with it, as we got a request for the > package. But please note two things: we short of postponed it, as it > won't make into Sarge and David is moving back to the US of A so he does > not have an internet access for some weeks. I'm trying to package subversion for practice, and because I'm keen to switch to using the fsfs filesystem as soon as I can. If I get it successfully packaged, I'll post an annoucement on subversion-users. In that event, would it also be appropriate to cc debian-mentors and ask if someone could take a look at the package? > > Apparently not, after all. I see that the orig tarball is a tarball > > within a tarball. I guess that answers one of my questions. :-) I am > > still not sure why it is done that way, though. > Simple: Subversion contains a copy of Neon and libapr0, and at least > Neon is not DFSG free and as libapr0 is pulled from the Apache2 package, > both are _removed_ for copyright reasons, or not to crush with the Apache2 > libapr0. I see. Maybe I am being dense, but even if the upstream sources have been modified, why is it better to put them inside an orig.tar.gz tarball? To serve as a warning that it is not the original tarball, or does something in policy demand it be done this way? Thanks. Faheem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
