On 29/10/13 14:30, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:25:57PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote: >> The wording of 4.14 is not consistent with that interpretation: >> >> "If running dpkg-source -x on a source package doesn't [..] allow one to [..] >> run dpkg-buildpackage to produce a modified package [..], creating a > ^^^^^^^^ >> debian/README.source documentation file is recommended." >> >> implying that it's valid to for "dpkg-source -x" to produce a package that >> is not build-ready. > > You are missing 'modified'. It must be build-ready as long as you do not > modify it. > > You are applying selective quoting the section read: > > If running `dpkg-source -x' on a source package doesn't produce the > source of the package, ready for editing, and allow one to make > changes and run `dpkg-buildpackage' to produce a modified package > without taking any additional steps, creating a `debian/README.source' > documentation file is recommended. This file should explain how to do > all of the following: >
I assumed that "extract to modified-build-ready" is the same as "extract to build-ready". In other words, if you can "edit" then "produce a modified package", then the you can also *not* perform the editing step and just "produce an unchanged package". Likewise, if the former step is impossible, the latter step is also impossible. In what circumstance is my deduction false? Also, even if the deduction is wrong, the wording could still be improved to be more explicit, so that readers don't need to think through these logical games. BTW, by "build-ready" I don't simply mean "`debian/rules build` succeeds" - if the patches aren't applied, then the build succeeds only by accident and not due to the intention of the maintainer. X -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
