Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>> Tarballs using the wrong top-level directory name is nothing that can't be
>> worked around.
>
> dpkg-source does not care what directory (if any) a .orig.tar.gz extracts
> into. There's nothing "wrong" about an upstream tarball ext
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 08:17:21PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080705 18:22]:
> > * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
> >the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
> >rules/tarball.mk from cdbs
Thanks for all the input on tarball within tarball. I will stop using
that format for all my packages with the possible exception of ICU
which contains its own debian directory.
I was aware of the fact that dpkg-source handles the tarball nnot
extracting to package-version and have, in fact, adv
(some of the answers/facts have already been given, but I reply anyway to
also give my personal opinion)
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
>the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
That shou
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
>the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
>rules/tarball.mk from cdbs provides a very convenient way of
>handling this.
Have you considered the debi
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> So, is using tarball in tarball considered "bad" these days? Is it
> viewed as an approach that once had its time but is now discouraged,
> or is it just a matter of personal preference and creating a
> README.source that tells the user what to do file makes it all okay?
I
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Tarballs using the wrong top-level directory name is nothing that can't be
> worked around.
dpkg-source does not care what directory (if any) a .orig.tar.gz extracts
into. There's nothing "wrong" about an upstream tarball extracting into
"" instead of "-".
--
see shy jo
On lördagen den 5 juli 2008, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
>the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
>rules/tarball.mk from cdbs provides a very convenient way of
>handling this.
The .orig.tar.gz is s
* Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080705 18:22]:
> * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
>the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
>rules/tarball.mk from cdbs provides a very convenient way of
>handling this.
I consider this the
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 12:21 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> So, is using tarball in tarball considered "bad" these days?
I see no reason to consider this "bad".
> Is it
> viewed as an approach that once had its time but is now discouraged,
> or
I don't use it, but don't let that discourage you
In light of the upcoming change to 3.0 (quilt) source package format
and Raphael Hertzog's guidelines suggesting that we not use tarball in
tarball packages, I'm re-evaluating my habit of using this pattern.
There are many reasons that I prefer to use tarball in tarball, but
there are two that I
11 matches
Mail list logo
