Previously Chris Waters wrote:
> However, last time the topic was raised, the packaging manual was just
> a manual. Now that it has the effect of policy, I think that it's
> probably imperative that we change it to reflect what we really want
> ASAP.
The packaging manual is not part of official p
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:31:28PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> The packaging-manual description of .orig.tar.gz should be updated to what
> is the de-facto standard packages and tools have been following:
> foo-1.2.3.tar.gz should unpack into a directory bar, where bar is
> preferabily "foo
Yes, this is true. The subject has been raised before, and the
general consensus has always been that it is best, if possible, to
distribute an *unmodified* source tarball, for security reasons. Many
source tarballs come with associated checksums or signatures, and we'd
like our users to be able
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 3.2.1.0
Severity: normal
The packaging manual states that foo-1.2.3.orig.tar.gz must unpack to
foo-1.2.3.orig.
However, not only this is not true (dpkg-source apparently deals well with
the tarball unpacking to just about anything, as long as it is
one-directory
4 matches
Mail list logo
