[SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download

[Dan S]

2012/6/25 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
> On 12-06-24 at 08:06pm, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> > On 12-06-24 at 06:23pm, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsateler at users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>> >> >>     We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter
>> >> >
>> >> > Why?
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than.
>> >> >
>> >> > Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a
>> >> > (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream
>> >> > version with a cleaned up tarball.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was
>> >> indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice
>> >> than change the practice and not touch the rules file.
>> >
>> > You mean practice of packages like jackd2, or...?
>>
>> Supercollider itself. Dan had already uploaded a +dfsg version to the
>> git repository.
>
> Ohh, now I get it: You don't argue that it is a style "we" as team
> commonly use across all our packages, but merely than one of us three
> working on this *one* package has *once*, 16 minutes earlier, done it.
> That's what you call "existing practice".  Sorry for being dense.

Personally I find this sarcasm rather unpleasant, even though it's not
aimed at me. Lots of debian packages use "+dfsg" so I don't see why
the issue is so unambiguous as your sarcasm would imply. (Since I'm
not a full member of this group I might be unaware of some prior
discussion I guess.)

> @Dan: How did you make that tarball which you re-imported?  Clearly you
> didn't use the CDBS routines as you'd not told CDBS to use + as
> delimiter.  I recommend that you use the very method of recreating
> tarball that you document in README.source.

Correct, I did it manually. The reason was that, since the 3.5.3
source had already been imported un-stripped, I had expected that the
CDBS tools wouldn't be appropriate this time but should be used in
future. I think I was wrong about that.

> Since the packaging has not yet been released officially into Debian,
> there is still time to change to a better style with no harm or other
> complications involved.  I recommend that you do so, Dan.

No problem, I'll do this, as long as we're all agreed :)

One question: if a package "foo-6.4" was released un-stripped, and
then later was stripped for DFSG reasons, it would have to be
"foo-6.4+dfsg" rather than "foo-6.4~dfsg" wouldn't it? I guess that's
a different situation.

Thanks
Dan


> Importing a newly generated, differently named tarball containing same
> content should only be a tiny commit, thanks to how git-buildpackage is
> designed. :-)
>
>
> Regards,
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers