Joey Hess wrote:
Andreas Fester wrote:
not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be pristine.
That's self-contradictory. And wrong.
That's what I learned from other developers during my first packaging
experience :-), and its difficult to argue if you are a novice
I al
Andreas Fester wrote:
> not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be pristine.
That's self-contradictory. And wrong.
> One reason could be to remove autotools dependencies, another could be
> to remove files which would otherwise be removed by the "clean" target
> and would end up
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:22:43PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sorry, but I have to point out that your recommendation describes the
> very opposite of Debian best packaging practices.
>
> - Basically, the only reason to repackage upstream is to avoid license
> problems. Dropping unneccessar
Andreas Fester wrote:
>> Sorry, but I have to point out that your recommendation describes the
>> very opposite of Debian best packaging practices.
> I am just not sure how "strong" this practice should be seen. My
Quite frankly, I was disappointed that this recommendation didn't get
more criticis
Hi,
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
[...]
not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be pristine.
One reason could be to remove autotools dependencies, another could be
to remove files which would otherwise be removed by the "clean" target
and would end up in a huge diff.gz.
Sorry, but I
Hi,
Andreas Fester wrote:
>>> An excellent point. I imagine that it would also be permissible to
>>> repackage the .orig.tar.gz file so that it is gone from there as well.
>>
>> ? orig.tar.gz should be as it says - the original.
> not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be prist
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, François-Denis Gonthier wrote:
On 28 September 2005 14:07, Justin Pryzby wrote:
When I make a new upstream package for Erlang, I need to extract the upstream
tar.gz file, which is named otp_src_[version].tar.gz, rename the created
directory to a Debian friendly name and the
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 12:05:10AM -0400, Fran?ois-Denis Gonthier wrote:
> On 28 September 2005 14:07, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> When I make a new upstream package for Erlang, I need to extract the upstream
> tar.gz file, which is named otp_src_[version].tar.gz, rename the created
> directory to
On 28 September 2005 14:07, Justin Pryzby wrote:
When I make a new upstream package for Erlang, I need to extract the upstream
tar.gz file, which is named otp_src_[version].tar.gz, rename the created
directory to a Debian friendly name and then make the .orig.tar.gz.
Does that count as repackag
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 01:08:47PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >An excellent point. I imagine that it would also be permissible to
> >repackage the .orig.tar.gz file so that it is gone from there as well.
> True, but then there is an additional ste
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 12:19:08PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > Is it a Bad Thing to use that library instead of depending on the
> > official packaged one?
>
> Yes(TM), it is a Bad Thing(TM).
>
> If the official library is suitable, then use it. It will:
>
> - absolve you of providing
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
An excellent point. I imagine that it would also be permissible to
repackage the .orig.tar.gz file so that it is gone from there as well.
-Roberto
True, but then there is an additional step to taking a new tarball release
and making a packag
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 01:36:02PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 12:07:08PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:15:12PM +0200, Tommaso Moroni wrote:
> > >>Hi!
> > >>
> > >>I'm packaging kchmvi
An excellent point. I imagine that it would also be permissible to
repackage the .orig.tar.gz file so that it is gone from there as well.
? orig.tar.gz should be as it says - the original.
not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be pristine.
One reason could be to remove au
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 6:36 pm, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > Don't delete it form the upstream tarball though or your diffs will be
> > huge. Just disable the compilation in the makefiles.
> >
> > Carlo
>
> An excellent point. I imagine that it would also be permissible to
> repackage the
Hello Tommaso,
Good thing that you are making a debian of kchmviewer. I myself made a
debian package a month back or so.I contacted the developer about the
same. I got reply just yesterday. Anyways I have already worked on
this, so if you want I can send you the debianised source tar and you
c
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 12:07:08PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:15:12PM +0200, Tommaso Moroni wrote:
> >>Hi!
> >>
> >>I'm packaging kchmviewer, which uses a version of chmlib bundled
> >>in the upstream tarball.
> >>
> >
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:15:12PM +0200, Tommaso Moroni wrote:
Hi!
I'm packaging kchmviewer, which uses a version of chmlib bundled
in the upstream tarball.
Is it a Bad Thing to use that library instead of depending on the
official packaged one?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:15:12PM +0200, Tommaso Moroni wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm packaging kchmviewer, which uses a version of chmlib bundled
> in the upstream tarball.
>
> Is it a Bad Thing to use that library instead of depending on the
> official packaged one?
Yes(TM), it is a Bad Thing(TM).
If
Hi!
I'm packaging kchmviewer, which uses a version of chmlib bundled
in the upstream tarball.
Is it a Bad Thing to use that library instead of depending on the
official packaged one?
Regards,
--
Tommaso Moroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
20 matches
Mail list logo
