I demand that Andree Leidenfrost may or may not have written... > I am the co-maintainer for packages mindi and mondo which had bugs #233606 > and #233605 filed a while ago. These bugs where about the packages > containing binaries in the upstream source. This was true, the binaries > have been removed since and the bugs closed.
> However, this means that we are currently not distributing the pristine > upstream sources of mindi and mondo, which I am not overly happy with. (I > am highlighting this fact by adding sub-versions to the upstream versions > in the package names.) I doubt that this would be considered to be a problem, and may well be a Good Thing: the source takes up slightly less space in the archive, and there's no possibility of upstream's binaries being used during the build process. [snip] > Should the answer be that the binaries indeed have to be removed from the > upstream source in the orig.tar.gz file, I would also very much like to > know whether my current approach of appending a sub-version to the upstream > version number is approriate (example: 2.03 -> 2.03.1). Bad idea. What if there's an upstream 2.03.1? -- | Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at | woody, sarge, | Northumberland | youmustbejoking | RISC OS | Toon Army | demon co uk | Retrocomputing: a PC card in a Risc PC Insanity is just a state of mind.
