> Michael> I'd like to name the modules source file modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz, > Michael> the binary modules_2.0.0-8_i386.deb and the directory in which the > Michael> source is stored IMO should be modules_2.0.0. > As the saying goes: You can't have the pie and eat it.
> There are conflicting goals: either we want to make clear that upstream > sources are unaltered (which we agree is a good principle) and therefore name > a source file modules-2.0.tar.gz or we strive for consistency and name it > modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz which looks as if we have altered the sources. > But I very much like the idea of renaming the directory. After all, it > contains pristine upstream material _plus_ our patches. This is not how I understand the upcoming source handling. I think the only diff made to the original sources is that they unpack in a proper named directory. The patches are applied later but aren't part of the sources files distributed with debian which will be named like hello_1.3.4.orig.tar.gz (IIMNM). Erick
