Looking for sponsor or mentor for package crtmpserver

Alessandro Ghedini al3xbio at gmail.com
Tue Mar 15 20:10:47 UTC 2011

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:39:43PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Generally fine points, but some of them are exxaggerating and can
> thus be misleading even if not totally wrong:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:44:04PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> >Also, since you have repackaged the orig.tar archive, you have
> >also to document it properly in the d/copyright (you can use a
> >'Comment:' field), or in the d/README.source file, telling what
> >and why you have removed (like [0]).
> Notes on uncommon packaging procedures (which creating of tarballs
> from SVN falls under) belong in debian/README.source only.
> What should be mentioned in debian/copyright is documenting parts of
> upstream source stripped or in other ways avoided from Debian
> redistribution.
> >As per Debian Policy you also have to provide a 'get-orig-source'
> >target in the d/rules file, which builds properly the new tarball
> >(without the files you decided to remove). This makes easier for
> >future maintainance (you won't have to repack the tarball manually
> >every time you update the package).
> You don't "have to" provide a get-orig-source target, but yes, you
> are encouraged to do so.
> >Actually, the get-orig-source rule would have been required
> >anyway, since you are using directly the sources from a SVN
> >repository (I have not much experience in packaging directly from
> >svn, so I missed this at the beginning). Have a look at [1] for an
> >example of what you should do.
> Again, this does not make get-orig-source a _requirement_.
> >Another requirement for the repackaged upstream tarball is to add
> >something like '~dfsg' to both the source and binary packages
> >version just to make clear to everyone that you have modified it.
> >The package versions would look something like:
> >
> >  0.0~dfsg+revNNN for the source package
> >  0.0~dfsg+revNNN-1 for the binary package
> This is no requirement (for the reasons described above): A dfsg in
> the version number indicated that the source has been repackaged in
> order to comply with "Debian Free Software Guidelines" which is
> independent from creating a tarball due to upstream distributing in
> other forms than by tarballs.

Upstream sources *have* been repackaged due to some binary files not in the
"preferred form of modification". But I understand (and agree with) your 
other points.


perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list