On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:38:43 +0100 Norbert Preining <prein...@logic.at> wrote:
> > cleaner - no longer quilt-specific stuff in debian/rules, and a nice > > debian.tar.gz instead of a diff. > > Beh, I disagree, the 3 different lines in debian/rules are NOT bad > by itself, it shows that *something* is changed. And a nice > debian.tar.gz, what does it give you? Do you look at the files and > enjoy their artistic beauty? I don't care for what they look like, I > upload them, and as long as the tools can work with them, that is > fine. > > Well, de gustibus non disputandum est. > > I will remain with 1.0 until I see a compelling reason :-) I'm keeping at least 2/3rds of my packages on 1.0 too and plan to do so even after 3.0 is "default". I see no merit in 3.0 for most of my packages. 3.0 becoming default still cannot require that packages are changed to 3.0 when the maintainer still uses 1.0 - there are too many changes within the package for the conversion to be automatic. > (In fact there is one, including binary files in .debian.tar.gz, but > since I only need that for the TeX Live packages, and svn-buildpackage > is not ready, I am hosed again) svn-buildpackage 0.7.1 can cope with dpkg source format 3.0 - in the context of using an .orig.tar.bz2 but not (yet) with multiple tarballs. Have you tried that version with TeX Live? If there are things that svn-bp (>=0.7.1) doesn't yet do that TeX Live needs, please file bugs so that I know what to fix. Thanks. (Personally, I'm not happy with 3.0 either, I see no sufficient benefit to use it unless the upstream tarball is a .tar.bz2. It's not cleaner, lsdiff -z is no different to tar -tzf. However, I will do what I can to allow 3.0 to work within svn-bp for the few packages that may benefit.) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgp7E8yJoH7Zb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
