On Sun 2016-05-08 02:45:40 -0400, Osamu Aoki <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> Package: devscripts
>> Version: 2.16.4
>> Severity: normal
>> Tags: patch
>>
>> Dear Maintainer,
>>
>> some upstreams (like sks) ship their tarballs as foo-1.1.5.tgz
>
> True and I was aware of it.
>
>> @ARCHIVE_EXT@ fails to locate this tarball.
>>
>> The attached patch should address this concern.
>
> I think it does but I think I had reason why I did not do this.
> It may have been something to do with signiture verification.
> I forgot what exactly put me off to add such extension ...
hm, do we really need to avoid it if the reason is not something we can
remember?
> You can always use explicit description in watch file if upstream uses
> such extension.
sure, but i'd prefer to just use the generic in case my upstreams change
their minds and start using more normal.
--dkg
_______________________________________________
devscripts-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devscripts-devel
