On 08/06/2017 09:15 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-08-06 20:00:59 +0100 (+0100), Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > [...] >> You'd still have to clean the pre-built files, since they would be >> overwritten by the build system and therefore dpkg-buildpackage >> would complain if you run the build twice. >> >> So, you might as well just exclude them from the source straight >> away, no? > > Repacking an upstream tarball just to avoid needing to tell > dh_install not to copy files from a particular path into the binary > package seems the wrong way around to me
What's wrong is for upstream to pretend that one tarball / archive is its released source, when in fact it contains binary / generated files. A source tarball / archive from upstream must contain *only* source code, nothing else. If it contains anything that comes from the original source, then it's additional pain for the package maintainer. > but maybe I'm missing > something which makes that particularly complicated? This comes up > on debian-mentors all the time, and the general advice is to avoid > repacking tarballs unless there's a policy violation or you can get > substantial (like in the >50% range) reduction in size on especially > huge upstream tarballs. That's one view, probably motivated by the fact it's probably easier to deal with in the long run. However convenient it may be, I don't think it feels "clean". And by the way, when it comes to the OpenStack stuff, FTP masters have already expressed their dislike of the upstream ChangeLog: it is a *WAY* to big, at the level of megabytes sometimes, and it may appear in .deb files that would otherwise be a few kilobytes. All this isn't new... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
