[pkg-boinc-devel] RFS: BOINC

[Frank S. Thomas]

On Wednesday 21 December 2005 15:29, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> You may be right. Google did not know anything in this respect. The only
> comment I could add is that the removal of unneeded redundant libraries or
> provided binaries is a standard procedure that should be applied for all
> the packages and is also part of the minor issues list of the package
> rejection check list.

Ok. The Developer's Reference does not say anything about the dfsg sufffix 
too, even though it seems to be widely used (approx. 150 uploads since 
August).

> In our case, it is that standard procedure that renders a DFSG-problematic
> distribution a DFSG-compliant one.
>
> My guts fealing is - leave it.

Our current orig.tar.gz files follow the DevRef's best packaging practices[1] 
- maybe that is sufficient. I won't add the suffix for now.  

Thanks Steffen for your helpful replies and merry Christmas!
 - Frank

[1] 
file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boinc-devel/attachments/20051223/2fbb0c4f/attachment.pgp