Hi Joachim, On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:40:39AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Mittwoch, den 30.04.2014, 22:52 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > > Well, I can survive with this - finally its a matter of taste. > > > > I did some tests in the last weeks. Today I realised that the main > > source dir is missing the appendinx "+dfsg" which is as far as I know > > good packaging practice and was implemented in my original patch. May > > be this should be implemented again. > > I guess you are talking about the top-level directory of the archive > contents? I’m not sure. I like to keep things simple and predictable,
Well, I have seen that habit in several get-orig-source targets and considered it best practice. If you *intentionally* droped this "feature" it is perfectly fine for me. > > Regarding origtargz: I admit I have not understood how to use this. > > Could you perhaps add an example in the end of the manpage? > > Use it like uscan, just with a tarball that you have obtained anywhere > else. So the simplest case would be > > $ wget http://example.com/new-and-hot-release/with-weird-name.tar.gz > $ mk-origtargz --package foo --version 0.1 with-weird-name.tar.gz > # now you have a foo_0.1.orig.tar.gz file > > But if you never had the need to do that independent from uscan then you > can of course ignore it. I just thought that I could make use of it in a case when I had to remove a file from an existing package with an existing tarball. I just wanted to make profit from the existing download without firing up uscan to download from scratch. I guess properly used mk-origtargz would have been my friend to do so, but I failed to find the proper options. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de _______________________________________________ devscripts-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devscripts-devel
