On 11/4/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which is exactly what you're supposed to be doing. Letting > arch-buildpackage build one only makes sense when upstream uses arch, > in which case you want to keep the control files. The whole point of > this feature originally was to build tla itself directly from the > upstream archive.
I see. However, this assumes that the builder *has* a .tar.gz already at hand; had that been not the case (or, instead of a .tar.gz, he has a .zip, or a .tar.bz2) the builder would soon see lintian errors about the generated .tar.gz having arch directories, not to mention it being a native package when it not intended to be so. While I do see some convenience letting these arch dirs remain, I still feel that it would be equally convenient to be able to rebuild the source package from <package>/upstream, excluding the arch inventories and effectively rebuilding a clean source, as the builder can get that just as easily as the devo+debian tree. Respectfully yours, Zakame -- Zak B. Elep --- http://zakame.spunge.org 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D
