[My response to this message, and my question are more suited to -mentors than -devel, so I have set Reply-to to -mentors.]
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > In particular, a number of binary packages could be produced from > either of two source packages: > > dict-elements and dict-misc both include source for: > dict-elements.deb > (presumably dict-misc needs to be changed) This is also true of dict-foldoc and dict-misc, except that I failed to comment out the lines pertaining to elements in Makefile.in. The upstream tarball for dict-misc includes the sources for the elements, foldoc, jargon, easton, and hitchcock databases. Since foldoc is updated very frequently, I forked it into a separate package in the initial release. Subsequently, I received an updated version of elements, so I forked this as well. This made it unnecessary to build five packages every time one of the actively maintained dictionaries was updated. Because of this, the sources for these two dictionaries appear in the archives twice. There would be a saving in archive and mirror disk space and in bandwidth if I removed these databases from my source tree and made a new orig.tar.gz as non-pristine source. All of the dict-* packages include formatting software produced by the upstream author and a database taken from other sources and dropped into the ../data directory of the source tree. IMHO, the structure of these packages is such that "pristine" sources is less meaningful than it is for more typical packages. The forked dictionaries are no longer "pristine source". Would it be desirable for me to create a new, non-pristine orig.tar.gz to be included with the forthcoming upload to adopt the FHS, and thereby reduce the size of the archive slightly? Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9