Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: > To me, "Source:" contains origins. Makes sense to me for that field to > be mandatory and only contain URLs.
> I would like an optional field indicating that our redistribute as the > "source" (rather than our "overlay" part in the form of either a patch > or (with dpkg source format 3.0) an additional tarball) is not pristine > but have been created or tampered with by us - even if in fact based on > those upstream sources stated in "Source:". It seems like overkill to me, but I guess I don't really care. But if the source is only URLs, then for some of my packages I either need to omit it or duplicate Homepage, since I don't use any tarball release from upstream and therefore have no URL to point to. I package a Git tag instead, for which there's no URL syntax. Or I guess just include the URL of the upstream instructions on how to use Git. > Perhaps "Source-Manipulation:" better describes what I would want such > field to cover: Even if content not machine-parsable, it is still > machine-parsable if that field exists, flagging this source package as > redistributing non-pristine "source" tarballs. But that field name also isn't an accurate representation of what's going on when the packaging is based on a Git tag. No manipulation is involved other than running git archive against a tag. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87iq27241r....@windlord.stanford.edu
