On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:42:10AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:32:42AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > > > Egads! > > > > > > So I go to try and prepare a QA upload of guile-oops to orphan it > > > properly, > > > and it's currently a native package. I just converted visualos to a > > > non-native package, so I figure I'll have a go with guile-oops. > > > > > > The bloody thing's got a tarball inside its source tarball. What should I > > > do > > > in this case? Leave it as a native package? Run away? > > > > You have to restart debian version by -1. > > Why? I really don't see why this should be necessary. > > I checked out the package, and it actually has a tarball inside with the > contents of the 1.0 version of that very debian package... > > Since newest upstream is 1.0.2, simply start with that upstream > .orig.tar.gz, and apply any patches you can discover in the package > (though due to the very weird layout of the package, that might be > hard).
Well I can't remember exactly what I did yesterday, but the problem I struct that caused me to go "gah!" was that I got the good old "cannot represent binary changes in diff" problem, which is when I discovered this big fat tarball... > Note that upstream includes a 'debian' directory: the upstream author > apparantly did develpment in Debian sid, since the sid version has > changes to the upstream changelog (additions), and already bumps the > reported version number as 1.0.3 (!), but hasn't yet been released on > GNU's website. > > Since there was no upstream release since March 2001, maybe this package > should be removed from the archive altogether. > I'm all for that :-)
