On 23/01/09 at 00:30 +0000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > > Hi all, > > > -<emphasis role="strong">must</emphasis> contain detailed information how > the > > -repackaged source was obtained, and how this can be reproduced in the > > +<emphasis role="strong">must</emphasis> be documented. Detailed > > information > on how the > > +repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced must be > provided in > > <filename>debian/copyright</filename>. > > What format should this "detailed" description be in? How detailed? > > * A description in words of what was done: "The non-free font files were > deleted from the source tarball" > > * A description in commands of what was done: "find -name \*.ttf -delete" > > * A brief description with a pointer to a log of what was done? "The non-free > font files were were stripped from the downloaded file to create the 'orig' > source package. See the file README.Debian-source for full details." > > I like the last of these the best, where the log file is generated from a > standard (yet to be decided!) repackaging tool that clearly shows what was > originally downloaded and what was done to it. > > Perhaps it's also time to start thinking about how the machine-readable > copyright files [1] fit into this. > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat > > Since the point of the machine-readable copyright proposal is to remove > arbitrary free form lumps of text from this file, it is perhaps opportune to > consider the side-effects of this new language on that proposal which mandate > the inclusion of unspecified amounts of "details". (Despite the efforts of > two or three contributors to the copyright format proposal, there is still > nowhere to include anything about repackaging; the suggested fields are > routinely removed -- perhaps this illustrates a shortcoming of a wiki for > writing such documents more than anything else!)
Hi, The role of developers-reference is to document existing good practices and to advertise them, not to discuss changes in the way we handle such things. I personally think that README.source is a mess, because it results in everybody redocumenting basic quilt/dpatch usage. If you feel strongly about any of the above, please start a discussion on -de...@. The outcome could be in the developers-reference, of course. > > It is also a good idea to provide a > > <literal>get-orig-source</literal> target in your > > <filename>debian/rules</filename> file that repeats the process, as > described > > Is this wording is slightly at odds with what policy 4.9? (Although that is a > matter of interpretation that can't be agreed upon, it would seem, see > #466550.) > > > get-orig-source (optional) > > > > This target fetches the most recent version of the original source > > package from a canonical archive site (via FTP or WWW, for example), does > > any necessary rearrangement to turn it into the original source tar file > > format described below, and leaves it in the current directory. > > Thus policy currently states that get-orig-source should (a) fetch the > tarball > and (b) repackage it, while the wording in that patch to devref only has > get-orig-source repackaging the tarball. Right, could you please provide a patch that fixes that part? > There is then the old chestnut of what one means by "most recent" source for > the get-orig-source target. Presumably one doesn't mean the most recent > release from upstream as we already have uscan to do that. Using > get-orig-source only to do the repackaging to regenerate the debian orig > tarball would seem to make the most sense. > > I wonder if the work to clean up this part of devref actually needs to be > part > of a wider effort to work out what is meant by get-orig-source and to > appropriately document it. Placing yet another divergent interpretation of > get-orig-source into devref doesn't seem to work towards that goal. Yup, best is probably to rediscuss all of this. I'm not sure if it's worth it, though. Have fun :) Note: this bug will be closed during the next upload. If you think that any of the above really needs to be fixed in devref, please open a new one, so it doesn't get forgotten. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
