[Pkg-zsh-devel] .orig tarball name

[Daniel Shahaf]

Axel Beckert wrote on Sat, 15 Feb 2020 03:02 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > Could the .orig tarball be named with a +dfsg suffix, as per [1], in order
> > > > to self-document that it's different from upstream's artifact?    
> > > 
> > > This documentation is admittedly incomplete, because it silently
> > > assumes that the only reason for repackaging are license issues of
> > > single files, not purely technical issues.
> > > 
> > > So if we introduce that type of renaming, wie should use "+ds" for
> > > "debian source".  
> > 
> > I did wonder about +ds; I don't recall seeing it documented.  
> 
> Not sure where I initially dug it up. I'm sure this is not my initial
> source, but at least it's a kinda official document and explains it:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What_does_.2BIBw-dfsg.2BIB0_or_.2BIBw-ds.2BIB0_in_the_version_string_mean.3F
> 

Thanks.

> > > Frank: Do you remember the exact reasoning?  
> > 
> > I'm guessing, but perhaps the idea was to ensure that all the generated
> > files below can in fact be rebuilt from source?  
> 
> That, too. And Ubuntu reverts exactly this and uses the upstream tar
> ball -- with wrong paths as a result:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zsh/+bug/1098531
> 
> > Are there any clues in comments in the code that generates the
> > repacked tarball?  
> 
> Nope. :-/

I've done the iterative blame dance and tracked the code in that
Makefile target to have been first added here:

https://github.com/xtaran/pkg-zsh-doc/commit/8bfd316cd569e1afce019132303b328ec90dcdd4

That's from December 2011 and it doesn't state the reason either.

Incidentally, a follow-up commit removed ~ds1 from the filename:

https://github.com/xtaran/pkg-zsh-doc/commit/30132a55d67b6ce047ba85b1983fae373efaa9d7

(Not sure why it used «~» rather than «+».)

Cheers,

Daniel