On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:38:27PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > This is neither pragmatic, nor could I find anything in policy or the > packaging manual that states this. The reason this is not a useful > guideline is that *many* upstream tarballs are not a > ./$package-$version/code format. Some aren't gzipped, and some
The ./$package-$version/ layout is no longer necessarily, and it's a bug in the relevant documentation that it's still mentioned. I would guess that less than 10% of my packages actually obey that rule. Some have no version. Some even have a different name. For example, the original source archives for the geda-gschem package are called just gschem_date.tar.gz; I rename them to geda-gschem_date.orig.tar.gz. They unpack into just gschem/, which is no problem for modern versions of dpkg-dev. > aren't even tarballs. Yet others are broken in other special ways. For > example, I just sponsored an upload a fortunes package where the > upstream tarball contained a full copy of the source for wget (?!?) - > naturally, we cut that out and saved about 450kB of cruft from occupying > every Debian mirror in the world. There are some circumstances where it is necessary but they are not too common these days. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>