On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:24:40PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:10:11AM -0200, Tiago Saboga wrote: > > The background is that I already have to repackage upstream tarball, > > because they contain compiled jars. > > I don't know much about java, but if those are just compilations of > things for which the source is also in the tarball, there is no need to > repackage. You can remove them in the clean target in debian/rules, for > example, to make sure they are regenerated. But of course I may be > completely missing the point. :-)
It's good to know that it's possible to leave compiled things in the tarball, but in these cases there are also third-party jars without source code. As I am repackaging anyway, I will cut out all jars to save space. > > 1) Should I convert eol markers (fromdos)? Or at least should I fix > > the half a dozen files which have CRLF+CR as eol markers? > > I wouldn't do that. Repackaging is done to make the tarball complient > with our standards, not to beautify it. If this conversion is a good > idea (and I agree that it is), then that is an upstream issue, and it > should be fixed there. Asking them about it is a good idea, changing it > in the package is not IMO. Upstream recently changed it the other way around :( The main problem with not converting it is that it is a pain to write and maintain patches with broken/different eol markers. OTOH, I see the point to have as unchanged as possible sources. > > 2) Should I convert the encoding to utf-8? > > Same thing, if it is a good idea, it should be done upstream. The > tarball should look as much as possible like the original upstream. In > fact, it should _be_ the original upstream, of course, but if it can't, > then it should be as close as possible to it. Changes you want to make > should be made using the diff.gz. Ok. > > In libhtmlparser, there are two files without copyright notice. This > > is already corrected in upstream's svn, but upstream is slowly > > preparing a new major version and doesn't seem likely to release soon. > > May I introduce myself the notice, noting somewhere that it was > > 'backported' from svn? > > If this is really a mistake, and this new notice is also valid for > previous versions (this is likely, but I don't know the details), then > you can safely add it. I don't think this is really needed, though. I > would mention in the copyright file that those files really have the > following license: ... with links to the upstream sources, or e-mail > archives saying that they do. You can choose to also add the header to > the file in the .diff.gz, but there's no real need IMO. It definitely > isn't a reason to repackage the tarball, and thus not something you > should fix in the repackaged tarball. I will then point it out in the copyright file. I was just afraid of not complying with debian copyright rules. Thanks, Tiago. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
