Hi, IANADD, but anyways some comments:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:03:54PM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: > 1. I have an upstream source tar-ball that accidentally includes some > files that are generated (and cleaned when a make distclean is issued) the question to decide is: What files does the tarball include so that you *must* remove them? AFAICS it seems to be general consensous that changes to the upstream source tarball must not be done if there is no good reason. I won't consider "they don't need to be here" a good reason. > Now, the best thing to do would be to copy the upstream tar-ball as-is > to orig.tar.gz and have a patch that removes these files (this will > result in a big diff). However, is it OK to create an orig.tar.gz file Why do you need to remove them? Are they causing any impact? If not: Why not leave them alone? > based on the upstream tar-ball with these files removed? Do maintainers > create a new orig.tar.gz based on the upstream tar-ball and use it (even > in the non pkg-modified-to-be-dfsg case)? There are rare cases where repackaging seems appropriate, e.g. for removing an upstream provided debian directory, or in the (you named it) case where upstream sources contains non-dfsg material. > 2. Are there packages in our archive that directly include parsers > (generated by bison etc.) in the orig.tar.gz directly rather than > "Build-Depends"-ing on the parser-generator? Hm. I don't know, but I would consider this quiet crappy. > I am guessing that there shouldn't be any (unless the parser is > hand-edited heavily later) because a bug in the generated parser because > of the parser-generator would be difficult to spot. But this case is one of the worst I could imagine. If it is hand-edited later it would be impossible for someone else to recreate the parser later. Better would be to patch the input files to create a parser as it is needed. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
