Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification

1997-05-14 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 13.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Or, thirdly, we use pristine sources iff they are in supported > formats, or else the upstream source is massaged into a supported > format, and BIG signs are posted pointing to the real sources and the > st

Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification

1997-05-14 Thread Bdale Garbee
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: : BTW: Do you know anybody who really needs to put all the tools needed : to build source packages onto floppies? :-) Yes, I do. A friend has an older laptop that has a floppy drive, and that's his only current path of getting bits in and out. He may

Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification

1997-05-13 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Jim" == Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Might it be possible to, say, have a list of `supported formats' -- >> .tar.gz, .zip, others? -- and at least give the option of >> downloading upstream sources which were originally in other formats >> as a tarball? This is far from ideal, fo

Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification

1997-05-13 Thread Jim Pick
> How about where part of the upstream archive could go into the main > distribution, but part needs to go into non-free or non-US, even for the > sources? > > That's a case where you _must_ repack the original archive. > > > MfG Kai No. I'd just say upload the upstream sources to the non

Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification

1997-05-13 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Mortimer) wrote on 13.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On May 12, Jim Pick wrote > > > > Excellent write-up, Klee. Thanks for doing it. > > I second this; a lot of thought has obviously gone into this, and it > shows! Me too! > > > * [1.1] It must be possible to recon

Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification

1997-05-13 Thread Jim Pick
> > Please clarify - unpacking a Debian source package is different > > than unpacking an upstream source package (which may require tar, > > unzip, zoo, lha, jar, etc.). Right? Andy Mortimer wrote: > Personally, I'd be inclined to disagree here, especially given [1.5] > below. If I've gone to

Re: New Source Formats and Source Package Verification

1997-05-13 Thread Andy Mortimer
On May 12, Jim Pick wrote > > Excellent write-up, Klee. Thanks for doing it. I second this; a lot of thought has obviously gone into this, and it shows! > Since I've been attacking this topic lately, I'll try to post some (hopefully) > constructive criticisms. But, overall, I agree with what y